f13.net

f13.net General Forums => TV => Topic started by: Evildrider on September 11, 2008, 07:38:49 PM



Title: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on September 11, 2008, 07:38:49 PM
So I figured I'd start a Dr. Who thread over here with this little tidbit of news.



David Tennant is in negotiations for a new film version of "Doctor Who" says The Telegraph.

The actor, currently only contracted for five more episodes, has reportedly agreed to reprise his role as the tenth Doctor in a full fifth season in 2010 if the big screen role can be added to a new deal.

"For ages, BBC Worldwide held the rights and were planning to make a movie, but it got held up and former BBC1 boss Lorraine Heggessey decided to bring back the TV series in 2005. But everyone is keen now and the fans are clamouring. Part of David's conundrum is that he wants to do films, so this looks like it would solve both issues" says a source.

BBC managers are seeking funding for the film and outgoing producer Russell T. Davies revealed he would like Catherine Zeta Jones to play the Doctor's companion in a film version.

Incoming producer Steven Moffat is also keen on the idea, saying last month that "It would be good to see it in the cinema so long as it's fantastic."

Two previous film versions of the series have been made. Peter Cushing took the lead role in 1965, and Paul McGann starred as the Time Lord in 1996.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on September 28, 2008, 04:49:13 PM
Meanwhile, have some rumours about the fifth season (i.e. 2010):

Pretty much  :awesome_for_real: all round, if true.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 28, 2008, 09:02:42 PM
John Simm... le awesome.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on October 19, 2008, 12:55:35 PM
Latest fun rumour: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3183974/Seven-Dr-Whos-set-for-reunion.html
Quote
All seven surviving Doctor Whos are to feature together in a one-off television special.
The actors are getting together for the BBC charity Children in Need in a programme to be broadcast on November 14.
An insider at the BBC said: "It's a pretty ambitious idea and it's still being finalised. Everything is being kept under wraps but Doctor Who fans are in for a big treat."
:awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2008, 05:35:48 AM
Where are you getting those spoilers from ? 

It's been a while since I've sought out Who trivia.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on October 20, 2008, 12:13:25 PM
I've just started watching the 3rd series of these new Dr Who's and I'm very impressed. Feels true enough to the original (around which a large part of my entire childhood revolved) for the most part, except for the slight obsession with love-interest elements they seem to insist on, and the scripting and production values are excellent.

Are we really onto 4 seasons of this now? is the quality maintained? If so then I've got some catching up to do :)

Edit: 3rd not 2nd series. Numbers confuse poor brain.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on October 20, 2008, 01:00:04 PM
If anything I think it gets better as it goes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on October 21, 2008, 01:48:25 AM
Awesome, heading Amazon-way now. We're just about to finish The Sopranos, halfway through Band Of Brothers and needing something else to alternate with The Wire episodes :)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: MerseyMal on October 24, 2008, 05:34:22 AM
The current series has been refreshingly low on "love interest" guff and I though Catherine Tate did a rather good job.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: MerseyMal on October 30, 2008, 05:14:01 AM
David Tennant has announced that he'll be quitting the role of the Doctor after the last of the 2009 specials.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7698539.stm

So now the question is who should/will take his place?



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on October 30, 2008, 05:53:11 AM
They got lucky twice. With every new Doctor the chance they get a bad Doctor increases. Hope they can pull it off again, and I am awaiting how they will grant him new regenerations. He kinda runs low...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 30, 2008, 06:57:22 AM
Indeed, but that's easy fixed.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on October 30, 2008, 07:05:35 AM
They've revived the series and had two good Doctors.  To keep the buzz rolling, they will roll out a woman or minority this time.  If its a woman, it'll be someone hot and completely inappropriate for the role, like Alicia Silverstone doing her British accent in Batman and Robin. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: FoXX on October 30, 2008, 09:26:24 AM
I think Catherine Tate is batty enough for the job but is it something hardened who fans will countenance.....


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Soln on October 30, 2008, 11:55:32 AM
Stephen Fry!   :awesome_for_real:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2008/oct/30/doctorwho-bbc


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on October 31, 2008, 12:31:09 PM
Hugh Laurie would also be pretty awesome for the role if he weren't tied up with House.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: IainC on October 31, 2008, 12:37:36 PM
Richard E Grant would be an awesome Doctor, apparently Patrick Stewart has said he'd like to be involved as well.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on October 31, 2008, 12:42:20 PM
Patrick Stewart as the Doctor?  I don't think the universe can handle that much win.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Engels on October 31, 2008, 12:42:57 PM
Joanna Lumley would be hilarious


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on October 31, 2008, 12:54:55 PM
Was Richard E. Grant in the Comedy Dr. sketch? I know Joanna and Hugh Grant were... I think Stephen Fry could be massive win but it would be a very different Dr. from the two previous ones. At least it probably wouldn't involve any annoying Dr. falling in love with his companions storylines.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 02, 2008, 07:20:06 AM
Don't think it's ever going to be a woman.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: AngryGumball on November 04, 2008, 02:31:57 AM
I am curious to know why David Tennant is quitting. Was it 2 or 3 years worth of work.
Is it that much harder to do the role? Beyond seeing him in Harry Potter*even then only reconized after I saw him as The Doctor. Never saw him before but then I do not watch British TV.

Was he that well paid that he can just say you know I've had enough time to find something else. Like it would be that easy for an actor?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on November 04, 2008, 06:35:38 AM
Was he that well paid that he can just say you know I've had enough time to find something else. Like it would be that easy for an actor?

I would imagine pretty much this. These new Dr Who series have been extremely successful for the BBC, it's a very high profile part and an iconic character, especially in the UK, that he's played very well.

Being a good Dr Who here is a fairly guaranteed gravy train for life if you follow it up well, Tom Baker being a good example. I'd guess that Tennant can now pick and choose what he wants to do from a very long list of parts right now.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on November 04, 2008, 01:41:21 PM
He said in an interview (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7698539.stm) he's done what he set out to do, and wants to leave on a high note rather than let it drag on.

Edit: doh! Someone linked to it already. Well watch the dang video and you'll see why he's leaving.  :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Johny Cee on November 04, 2008, 03:53:02 PM
Don't think it's ever going to be a woman.

Probably not.  But damn Tilda Swinton would be awesome.

She could play the androgynous Doctor!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on November 04, 2008, 07:48:19 PM
Don't think it's ever going to be a woman.

Probably not.  But damn Tilda Swinton would be awesome.

She could play the androgynous Doctor!

I think Alex Kingston would be a good fit as a female Doctor. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on November 05, 2008, 01:32:08 AM
I think Alex Kingston would be a good fit as a female Doctor. 

Think outside the box! Helen Mirren  :why_so_serious:   No wait... Mo Mowlam! :D


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on November 05, 2008, 11:53:39 AM
Don't think it's ever going to be a woman.

Nope.. but following his daughter around when he offs it for the last time? Mebbe.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on December 28, 2008, 02:13:29 AM
Did anyone see this year's Christmas special? I thought it was pretty weak. The worst I've seen by far.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on December 28, 2008, 02:19:02 AM
Eh, the Christmas special was ok I guess.  I hope the Easter one is alot better.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 28, 2008, 03:19:33 AM
The Christmas specials are meant to be awful. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on December 28, 2008, 03:28:11 AM
Oh bollocks, I forgot about it. Oh well, if it was crap no great loss eh  :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 28, 2008, 07:41:12 AM
It was ok until the Battlemech started wrecking Victorian London.

No, seriously.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on December 28, 2008, 09:26:05 AM
Steampunk battlemech!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Jain Zar on December 29, 2008, 12:21:37 AM
Steampunk battlemech!

That... that sounds like almost everything I could want in a TV show. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on December 29, 2008, 12:53:29 AM
yeah it was IMO the weakest Xmas special so far.  It felt like they were coasting.  There was nothing inherently bad, but it just overall had a rather cardboard taste to it.  And yeah the battlemech was a bit much.

However, given that we won't be getting much new Who for awhile I enjoyed it for what it was.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 01, 2009, 10:46:21 PM
Definitely more character than plot. The only somewhat interesting moment for me was at the end where you see The Doctor and what's-his-name walking off for Christmas dinner. It was a tableau that we don't see too often, The Doctor with another guy, acting somewhat like guys.

So...yeah. A short buddy-moment was the best thing about it, which says a lot. Didn't suck, worth seeing, but wasn't the best episode ever.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on January 03, 2009, 12:17:39 AM
From the U.K.'s Guardian:

Tennant's replacement will be unveiled in an edition of Doctor Who Confidential to be broadcast on BBC1 at 5.35pm on Saturday, 3 January, featuring an interview with the actor who is to be the 11th doctor in the long-running BBC1 sci fi drama, successfully revived by the corporation in 2005.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on January 03, 2009, 09:54:39 AM
Please be Patrick Stewart. Please please please please please. I know it isn't going to be, but I can't stop myself hoping!  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on January 03, 2009, 12:36:33 PM
Help me out here Island Dwellers. Who the fuck is Matt Smith and is that good or bad news?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on January 03, 2009, 12:52:25 PM
Help me out here Island Dwellers. Who the fuck is Matt Smith and is that good or bad news?

As far as I can tell, he's a nobody.  This does not bode well for Dr. Who at all.  Plus he's like 26? 



Matt Smith named as new Doctor Who
31 minutes ago

Matt Smith has been named as the new Doctor Who, the BBC said.

He becomes the 11th Time Lord since the programme first aired in 1963.

Mr Smith will replace David Tennant at the helm of the Tardis, and is due to first appear on our screens as the revered doctor in 2010.

Smith, 26, is the youngest ever Doctor and although relatively unknown, has appeared in Alan Bennett's play The History Boys at the National Theatre in London, and alongside Christian Slater in Swimming with Sharks in the West End.

He said he was delighted to take on the role.

He explained: "I've got this wonderful journey in front of me. I've got six months to build this Time Lord and that's such an exciting prospect."

Smith was unveiled live on BBC1 and with the broadcast beamed live on BBC big screens nationwide.

He added: "I'm just so excited about the journey that is in front of me. It's a wonderful privilege and challenge that I hope I will thrive on.

"I feel proud and honoured to have been given this opportunity to join a team of people that has worked so tirelessly to make the show so thrilling.

"David Tennant has made the role his own, brilliantly, with grace, talent and persistent dedication. I hope to learn from the standards set by him. The challenge for me is to do justice to the show's illustrious past, my predecessors, and most importantly, to those who watch it. I really cannot wait."


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on January 03, 2009, 01:31:59 PM
Yeah, not good is my first feeling. 26 years old and he looks 18. Remains to be seen if he can pull it off but the role needs confidence and authority, which only the rare few can manage at that age.

Still, all things considered, even if he's the abject failure that I can't help but expect him to be then at least we've had 2 or 3 good seasons worth out of this revival of Dr Who. After the wilderness years of Peter Davidson, Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy that's a LOT more than I ever expected.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Oban on January 03, 2009, 06:25:45 PM
How far we have come as a society. 

I think we should all be proud that in this day and age Frankenstein could be cast as the lead of an iconic British television show when just a few decades ago he would have been run out of town by a mob wielding pitchforks and torches.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on January 04, 2009, 02:34:43 PM
You know, just looking at him, I think he might pull it off. He's a freaky-looking character, not at all your conventional 26-year old prettyboy. I wonder if there is some Time Lord tendency towards younger and younger regenerations as they get "older".


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 04, 2009, 03:02:59 PM
You know, just looking at him, I think he might pull it off. He's a freaky-looking character, not at all your conventional 26-year old prettyboy. I wonder if there is some Time Lord tendency towards younger and younger regenerations as they get "older".


The next series is going to be "Dr. Who 90210"


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on January 04, 2009, 04:42:30 PM
It's probably just as well they didn't get Patrick Stewart.  I think that much concentrated awesome in one spot might have caused the universe to collapse.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on January 05, 2009, 09:30:18 AM
Also nobody would ever want to be the next one. The only way to follow him would be to get Jesus himself to be the Doctor.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on January 05, 2009, 10:15:24 AM
Having now seen a picture of the new Who, I think there could be some interesting stories in this. His obvious youth is going to make characters not respect him as much as say a Tennant or Eccleston, which could have some fun dramatic moments. It's definitely a departure though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2009, 10:48:58 AM
What a bunch of fucking shite.

No, not the casting choice.  Do I think he's too young ?  Yeah.  Do I care ?  Nope.  Given the right story and direction anyone with an ounce of acting chops can be the Doctor.  That's not the problem.

What fucks me off is having a massive show dedicated to the reveal a fucking year and a half before we see this chap on the screen.

Yeah, I get WHY they did it.  Fuck the tabloids !

But it's still fucking retarded.

(Also, Jesus, his hair is floppy.  Floppy, floppy, floppy...)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on January 05, 2009, 11:41:52 AM
Wait, you still watch broadcast TV? Give that shit up before it drives you insane man. The only thing that's watchable as it's being broadcast is like, the news. Everything else should be downloaded or watched on DVD etc.

No adverts for products you don't need on ITV/C4, no adverts for the BBC on the BBC, no scheduling fuckups cos of sport etc, no watching any of the retarded crap that fills the airwaves, just picking and choosing exactly what you want to watch, when you want to watch it.

Madness lies the other way.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: DraconianOne on January 06, 2009, 09:58:28 AM
Wait till he gets to meet his "daughter".  That's going to be all kinds of wrong.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 06, 2009, 10:04:16 AM
Not so much.  She's regenerated and is in the body of an 80 year old.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: DraconianOne on January 06, 2009, 10:07:18 AM
And that's not wrong how?

HER: Come 'ere, dearie! I'll give you an 'orrible time!
HIM: Cripes-jiminey! Will there be lashings of ginger beer?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on January 06, 2009, 05:18:51 PM
He looks like he could be pertwee's grandson.  It will be odd watching a doctor that is younger than myself (though tenant was pretty close).  Like everyone else here I know absolutely zero about this guy... My only request... give him a damn haircut that isn't so emo.

guess it is time to poke around on youtube to find some clips of him.  Found a photo of him in a womans dress for some play, must dig deeper.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on January 06, 2009, 05:46:12 PM
Not so much.  She's regenerated and is in the body of an 80 year old.

Wait.. what?  When?   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on January 07, 2009, 05:25:40 AM
When they recast her, obviously!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on January 07, 2009, 11:09:37 AM
He's cute.  This is his hair in Dr. Who:

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01215/matt_smith_doctor__1215943c.jpg)

Here is an article:


Quote
THE NEXT DOCTOR WHO: Matt Smith will succeed David Tennant in the role as the Time Lord in the BBC's sci-fi series Doctor Who. Photo: BBC

Matt Smith has been cast as the replacement for David Tennant as the Time Lord in the BBC's sci-fi series Doctor Who. Ahead of Smith's incarnation as the 11th Doctor, we profile the young actor who has just won the biggest role in British television.

So who exactly is Matt Smith? There's no doubt a good proportion of the viewers of the grand unveiling of the 11th Doctor Who in Saturday's BBC1 documentary Doctor Who Confidential hadn't the foggiest when Smith's name came on the screen. And after all the feverish speculation that the next Doctor might be played by a Hollywood film star or, better still, Bill Nighy, it felt like a comedown that David Tennant's successor is a 26-year-old stripling with only two semi-popular dramas under his belt – the flaccid BBC1 literary adaptation The Ruby in the Smoke and BBC2's underrated Party Animals. But that doesn't mean Smith's not the right man for the job. It's easy to forget that the only major TV David Tennant had done before he became the Doctor was BBC3's hit-and-miss Casanova. Besides, big stars won't want to be locked into a part for several years, even if Doctor Who is the biggest role in British TV.

Like Tennant, Smith has already made his name on the stage before becoming the Doctor, even if he hasn't done much screen work. He had several minor roles, one of which was in Alan Bennett's National Theatre hit The History Boys. Then in 2007 came his major breakthrough: the part of a disturbed, abused adolescent in the Royal Court's play That Face. Smith was "outstanding" according to The Daily Telegraph; "the star of the evening" said The Sunday Times; "virtuoso", "mesmerising", "heart-rending" said three other critics. I saw his performance in That Face and it was devastating.

But Smith has more than acting ability. He also looks the part. There's the tousled coiffeur – "The hair!" as Steven Moffat, the series' new executive producer said on Saturday, with awe. According to Moffat's fellow producer Piers Wenger, there's something about Smith which makes you believe that, despite his youth, he really could be 900 years old: "There's a quirkiness to him, an unevenness to his face, a lot of stuff going on behind the eyes. He hasn't got an entirely modern face."

Most importantly, Smith has the personality to be the Doctor. Unassuming and "normal", this boy from Northampton isn't a product of a starry acting school, even if his sister is a backing dancer for Take That. In fact, as a teenager, Smith wanted to be a footballer before an injury put paid to that ambition and he did a stint at the National Youth Theatre instead. He then studied drama and creative writing at the University of East Anglia – a place considerably more famous for its creative writing than its dramatics.

Perhaps these humble beginnings helped, but Smith is gregarious and completely unpretentious as a person. You could see this in Saturday's BBC interview, in which he bubbled away about getting the part: "You're watching Doctor Who and your flatmate's there and you're going, 'Ahhh I'd love to share that I'm the new Doctor but I can't!'" I met Smith a couple of years ago in a bar and he was sweetly friendly. His rare interviewers have found the same; "funny and charming" said The Evening Standard in 2008.

A 21st-century Doctor needs to be affable because the role now requires much more than acting. Smith will have to cope with huge media interest, and also with a clamouring fan base mainly consisting of children. This is why the shy Ben Whishaw, another young actor touted for the role, would have been the wrong choice. But it is also why youth is now an essential part of the Doctor's make-up. Along with that fan base comes a huge merchandising industry and children need a Doctor close enough to their own age to identify with.

So what will Smith's Doctor, who will "regenerate" in this year's Christmas special, be like? Like Tennant, Smith is thin and gangly but handsome at second glance, so there is a danger of the 11th Doctor seeming like a clone of 10th.

However Smith comes to the role without Tennant's in-depth knowledge of the series and describes the next six months as a "time to build this Time Lord…to learn the history of the show", which should give his interpretation freshness. His Doctor may also be boyishly mischievous – he spoke with relish of "the sense of mischief" he got when he knew he'd be the Doctor.

He also spoke of the show's "magic". Smith is of the Harry Potter generation and so his Doctor Who may be full of the sense of myth and mystery found in the tales of the boy wizard – one quality that Tennant's Doctor maybe lacks.

Here is the source:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/4124591/Doctor-Who-Introducing-Matt-Smith-the-26-year-old-Time-Lord.html


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Righ on January 07, 2009, 11:20:24 AM
It's probably just as well they didn't get Patrick Stewart.  I think that much concentrated awesome in one spot might have caused the universe to collapse.

Not least because it would be awkward with him also playing The Meddling Monk (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article1770729.ece). Of course, if Peter Sellers can play all the roles in movies, why not Stewart?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 07, 2009, 04:16:36 PM
The Sun ?  Really ?

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Righ on January 07, 2009, 05:28:54 PM
I presume they got the scoop because of their high standing among those eggheaded time-bending boffins.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 08, 2009, 01:35:55 PM
David Tennant lacks Harry Potter magic? lulwhut? (http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/2914/bartemiuspn5.jpg)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on February 08, 2009, 12:10:12 AM
So BBCAmerica just finished rerunning last season, and in addition to them cutting out about ten minutes of ending scenes (including the Doctor's farewell, explaining why Donna's memory is erased, Mickey and Martha contemplating Torchwood, and Rose and Doctor2 kiss), of course there was that phone number that they flashed so many times. When that episode first ran...did anybody call it? If so, what happened?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on April 13, 2009, 01:34:30 PM
Doctor who Easter special ran last night and is available via the tubes for us folks in North America.

Much better than the Christmas special :heart:.  A bit of the plot felt lifted from the film Pitchblack.  It wasn't amazing in the sense of say, Blink, or Midnight, or the Library ones... but it was an hour well spent in my book.

Hmm not sure what else I can say that won't be a spoiler for peeps who haven't downloaded it yet. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on April 13, 2009, 01:52:29 PM
I liked it. I'm not sure if it was deeply depressing enough for Ironwood though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on April 13, 2009, 02:05:50 PM
It seemed like a normal episode.  Only thing that was real important was the prophecy from the end.

Otherwise it wasn't too bad.  Also Michelle Ryan was at least pretty hot. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on April 13, 2009, 06:19:29 PM
It seemed like a normal episode.  Only thing that was real important was the prophecy from the end.

Otherwise it wasn't too bad.  Also Michelle Ryan was at least pretty hot. 

yeah I had no problems with her strutting about in that black cat burglers outfit.  I guess it was a fairly "normal" episode.  I am so starved for new Who though that anything they throw me makes me tingle inside.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on April 13, 2009, 07:49:53 PM
It seemed like a normal episode.  Only thing that was real important was the prophecy from the end.

Otherwise it wasn't too bad.  Also Michelle Ryan was at least pretty hot. 

yeah I had no problems with her strutting about in that black cat burglers outfit.  I guess it was a fairly "normal" episode.  I am so starved for new Who though that anything they throw me makes me tingle inside.

Agreed.  I'd even take more Torchwood at this point.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 14, 2009, 03:01:04 AM
A 'bit' of the plot ??

The entire fucking episode was Pitch Black, up to and including the Claudia lookalike in the skintight outfit with the plummy accent.

Don't get me wrong, good episode for the kids who know no better, but total and uttery hackery.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on April 14, 2009, 03:23:54 AM
Actually it was Pitch Black doing the nasty with the Dr Who episode Midnight, up to even mentioning its second parent. "Humans on a bus, always blaming me".

If it was meant to play on the expectations of the former episode, it was actually clever. I strongly suspect that was coincidental, though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Numtini on April 14, 2009, 06:40:57 AM
We've seen the new guy in that Philip Pullman thing. It ran on PBS. I thought Billie Piper was dreadful and can't really recommend the show, but he was one of the better parts of it and I can see enough "quirk" there for him to pull it off. He's not just doomed to be a pretty young one.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on April 14, 2009, 02:59:35 PM
The new Doctor is gonna be the end of this show.  :(


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on April 15, 2009, 01:12:01 AM
(http://www.its-behind-you.com/images/sylvester-mccoy.jpg)

That's been suggested before.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: gryeyes on April 15, 2009, 01:14:23 AM
Is that the creepy guy in lost highway?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on April 15, 2009, 03:17:04 AM
No, it's Sylvester McCoy, the worst Dr Who ever, although to be fair he was the Dr during a period when the BBC were trying to destroy the franchise forever anyway.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: gryeyes on April 15, 2009, 03:34:23 AM
(http://www.dvdplaza.fi/reviews/images/lost_highway9.jpg)

Crazy similarity


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 15, 2009, 08:13:27 AM
No, it's Sylvester McCoy, the worst Dr Who ever, although to be fair he was the Dr during a period when the BBC were trying to destroy the franchise forever anyway.

Personally, I've always thought that Colin Baker was WORSE.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on April 15, 2009, 09:11:03 AM
Well, it's a bit like saying drowning to death in dog's urine is worse than drowning to death in cat's urine.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on April 15, 2009, 09:22:29 AM
No, it's Sylvester McCoy, the worst Dr Who ever, although to be fair he was the Dr during a period when the BBC were trying to destroy the franchise forever anyway.

Personally, I've always thought that Colin Baker was WORSE.


Seconded, although watching the Colin Baker episodes again, I actually liked his Doctor. The writing was just horrendous. For my money, Peter Davidson was my least favorite, but anyone trying to follow in Baker's footsteps was going to look pale by comparison.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on April 15, 2009, 02:21:45 PM
I just caught the episode. Yep, very fun, and Michelle Ryan was le hawt. As usual, lots of spin-off potential. Not terribly original, but really, there's been no new stories for about a thousand years, so who can blame them? Pitch Black my ass! Planet of the Dead had three suns, and Pitch Black had like none!



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on April 15, 2009, 04:18:27 PM
I don't know if I fall into your sarchasm now, but Pitch Black HAD three suns, clearly visible at the beginning of the movie.   8-)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on April 16, 2009, 09:29:23 AM
Woah, hahah I seriously forgot that. That's awesome! (Of course the thing is the whooptiedoos in Pitch Black attacked at night, while the thingies in Doctor Who attacked during the day, but still.)



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 16, 2009, 01:51:17 PM
I sort of liked McCoy's Doctor at a few odd moments, where I could see a pretty interesting version of the character trying to peek out from underneath awful direction, terrible production and McCoy's own inconsistent talents. Basically, when they were playing him as a slightly colder character who is more powerful than he has previously let on--elements of which have found its way into the Eccleston and Tennant versions of the character. Colin Baker was I thought just the absolute worst--not only his own acting, but it was the height of Nathan-Turner's vile egotistical assraping of the entire franchise.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on May 11, 2009, 09:43:21 PM
And now for a brief musical interlude.

http://www.yooouuutuuube.com/v/?rows=36&cols=36&id=6_ZxldeB43M&startZoom=1 (http://www.yooouuutuuube.com/v/?rows=36&cols=36&id=6_ZxldeB43M&startZoom=1)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on May 12, 2009, 11:28:59 AM
That's pretty damn cool.   Doctorin' the Tardis doesn't work out nearly as well in Yooouuu Tuuube.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 14, 2009, 05:18:42 PM
I sort of liked McCoy's Doctor at a few odd moments, where I could see a pretty interesting version of the character trying to peek out from underneath awful direction, terrible production and McCoy's own inconsistent talents. Basically, when they were playing him as a slightly colder character who is more powerful than he has previously let on--elements of which have found its way into the Eccleston and Tennant versions of the character.
Yeah, this is pretty much spot-on: there was a whole background scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartmel_Masterplan) to re-introduce some mystery back into the Doctor's character which got mildly disrupted by the series being cancelled.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 15, 2009, 04:18:05 AM
While not my favourite incarnation of the series by a long shot, McCoy is definitely one of my top 3 doctors.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 29, 2009, 08:11:01 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/news/latest/090529_news_01 New companion announced (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/news/latest/090529_news_01 New companion announced). Hope they don't go for a love interest angle: that's played out. I'd actually love to see a third companion who was an old person thrown in the mix at some point. Also show in the US is moving to BBCA..."Sy Fy" doesn't have the contract any longer, which is for the best, now they can air uninterrupted monster movies that were too shitty for anyone else to air.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on May 30, 2009, 01:14:33 AM
Oh dear. A redhead. And she's very pretty. I will be forced to watch this series  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on May 30, 2009, 04:48:19 AM
We've went down the road of "pretty" redheads before.  Is this one pretty-pretty, or Welsh-pretty?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tale on May 30, 2009, 04:53:56 AM
We've went down the road of "pretty" redheads before.  Is this one pretty-pretty, or Welsh-pretty?

Scottish-pretty.

Head writer and Executive Producer Steven Moffat declared, 'We saw some amazing actresses for this part, but when Karen came through the door the game was up. Funny, and clever, and gorgeous, and sexy. Or Scottish, which is the quick way of saying it.

Hot Scottish redhead = good.

(http://sarah-connor-chronicles.series-buzz.fr/pages/inc_actus/medias/shirley+manson.jpg)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 30, 2009, 07:34:28 AM
I would. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8073734.stm)


Except for the 'From Inverness' part of it.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on June 01, 2009, 02:11:43 AM
Will she be the actual Soothsayer she already played or a different character. Because an Ancient Roman Soothsayer as companion would be fun.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 01, 2009, 05:51:02 AM
Judging from comments here and there, different character.

Martha was 'corpse number 1' on the Dalek/Cyberman episode, so there's a strong precedent.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on June 01, 2009, 07:49:52 AM
It would be kind of cool to bring that character back in, as there is certainly precident for companions who aren't "modern".

Either way, she's yummy. All good.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: tazelbain on June 01, 2009, 12:15:31 PM
I prefer the non-romantic companions.  I wish he had traveled with his daughter for a while.  The Father/Daughter hijinx would have been :drill:.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Jain Zar on June 01, 2009, 02:34:12 PM
I prefer the non-romantic companions.  I wish he had traveled with his daughter for a while.  The Father/Daughter hijinx would have been :drill:.

What hijinx?  You could tell anything about her?  Those leather pants kept me from paying too much attention to anything else.  YOWZA.  :heart: :heart: :heart:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on July 05, 2009, 08:31:19 PM
Wasn't wild about the Christmas special, just aired in the US on BBC America. Wasn't terrible, wasn't good, was just 'eh'.

Just watched "The Five Doctors" again for the first time in a decade. Really, underneath it all, the plot isn't bad, it's just sandbagged by glacial action choreography, horrible cheapness (the Doctor has rattan furniture from Pier One Imports or some such in the Tardis? WTF?), all the hallmarks of the old show.

Watched a bit of the extras afterwards. John Nathan-Turner really comes off as the Chief Douchbag of Douchlyvania. The actors are all very polite about it but the best they can say about him is, "He got us some publicity". (E.g., he was in way over his fucking head.)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Soln on July 09, 2009, 01:38:48 PM
Film Project to be announced at SD ComicCon? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jul/09/doctor-who-comic-con)

Good idea methinks


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on July 09, 2009, 02:52:44 PM
Film Project to be announced at SD ComicCon? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jul/09/doctor-who-comic-con)

Good idea methinks

It's only a good idea if it's Tennant.  If it's the new Doc.. Who cares.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Soln on July 09, 2009, 02:57:48 PM
Film Project to be announced at SD ComicCon? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jul/09/doctor-who-comic-con)

Good idea methinks

It's only a good idea if it's Tennant.  If it's the new Doc.. Who cares.

article said that R.T. Davies and Tennant were announcing it at ComicCon.  So yeah, agreed.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: RUiN 427 on July 30, 2009, 02:16:07 AM
I someone were to start watching Dr. Who... where should they begin? Keep in mind I live in the Us and have only a slight curiosity for it. So more along the lines of netflix rather then importing a dvd set.

any suggestions?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on July 30, 2009, 02:51:28 AM
Start with the Eccleston Dr. Who season.  That being the first of the new Dr. Who.

All the new seasons have their good and bad points, but Eccleston did a superb job and I wish he would have stayed around for more then one season. 

You don't really have to watch any of the older Who stuff to get what is going on.

Remember though that besides the seasons there are Christmas specials thrown in there too.  They aren't must see's, but they are decent.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on July 30, 2009, 03:52:49 AM
I always suggest people start with Smith and Jones. It's a good intro to the Doctor and the universe as a whole.

There are people who will talk shit about that ep as it's the introduction of Martha, but to them I say, "Fuck you,
you Martha hater."


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on July 30, 2009, 06:01:52 AM
I came into Dr. Who with Eccleston and went back and watched the previous seasons after season 2.  Watching the old ones can get be a tad bit rough like watching the original Star Trek series; however, it really does go a long way in filling in the back story.

I'd suggest pick a point anywhere and start watching - but if you want a starting point, nothing like the beginning.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on July 30, 2009, 06:56:55 AM
Martha blew.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on July 30, 2009, 10:23:14 AM
I didn't like Martha, either.  They should have cast her as the same character she had previously played.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on July 30, 2009, 10:39:35 PM
The problem with Martha was that Davies was still stuck on "Doctor is a sexy sexy devil, and all females want to fuck him" schtick. I think it was fine when he introduced a sexual undertone for the first time: it was an acceptable twist to the formula. I thought it was ok when he suggested that Sarah Jane basically got so stuck on the Doctor that she burned her sex life on a pyre and waited for menopause to strike her hoping he'd come back. But enough's enough. Martha would have been fine if she was an interesting, intelligent professional who was fascinated by the Doctor's world and got caught up in his struggle. Which she was at times in her run--it's just that then Davies would get his wires crossed and go back to "Martha's in loooooove with the Doctor" thing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on July 30, 2009, 10:48:48 PM
Oh, she wasn't that bad.  I'm glad we went from Martha to Donna, though.  Donna, while not exactly as beautiful, seemed to have more sense than the two previous companions put together. 

I'm worried that since we are getting a 26 year old emo doctor they'll go back to the well, though. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on July 30, 2009, 10:51:02 PM
Yeah. I'm completely willing to like the next Doctor but I do not want "young adults with hormones". Just don't want it. Youthful energy, fine. Old soul in young body, fine. Doctor and companion constantly doing bedroom eyes at each other, no. Constant sexual tension, done with it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on July 30, 2009, 11:25:41 PM
Martha was crap, I just didn't like her.  I think Donna was the best of the new companions.  Rose was good too, but I think her *relationship* with the Doctor should have been the last of the Doc/Companion romances.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on July 31, 2009, 12:13:21 PM
I actually like that Martha was obviously attracted to the Doctor but knew better than to get hooked on him. It was a good transition from romantic doctor to the Doctor Donna relationship, a rebound companion as it were. Not sure how Emo Doctor and the Waif are going to get along, but we've already seen that the Doctor does get involved with a companion in another regen.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on July 31, 2009, 03:52:26 PM
I liked Martha so much, because first she was trying to be taken seriously as a doctor despite being young and cute, but also wanted to be taken seriously as someone the Doctor could be involved with, AND she knew she was living under the shadow of a lot of other companions, that it all became a study in what happens when someone realizes they'll never live up to anybody's expectations, and THEN what do they do?

They spend a whole year being underappreciated, work behind the scenes to save the world, then continue to live like that forever.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on July 31, 2009, 04:54:40 PM
Uplifting stuff !

 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on July 31, 2009, 05:35:00 PM
AND she stays sexy through it all!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on July 31, 2009, 06:00:29 PM
The Family of Blood episodes are what ultimately sold me on Martha. She was bad. ass. in that.

There are plenty of other instances where the companion saves the Doctor's ass (and not accidentally, like Rose did.) but that's one of the high points.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 02, 2009, 04:43:52 AM
The Crush Ruined Her.

It's that simple.

Everything she did that was impressive and clever and daring and quick was totally trampled by her mooning all over the shop like a daft cow.

Even the Sontaran Strategem had her Engaged to be Married and mooning like a lovelorn twonky.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Soln on August 02, 2009, 12:15:52 PM
I really didn't like Donna in the Xmas special.  And then she became my favorite companion, possibly ever.  She seemed to be the companion with the most depth and the most balls.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on August 03, 2009, 12:54:08 PM
Yeah Donna took a while to grow on me, but when she did, I think she became my favorite. Donna's really at the heart of the show, someone unassuming but with so much potential, then realized it, then had to give it all up, and she wasn't all lovestruck or whatever. She was the Doctor's true friend, and that's a dynamic hard to pull off on TV, male-female friends. AND of course she has a reputation for really good comedy, so it was awesome to see her play something straight and subtle like that. Without getting all dark even!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 12, 2009, 01:51:00 PM
The time beetle episode was dark as fuck.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on August 12, 2009, 03:36:46 PM
Hm, yeah it was.  :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on September 03, 2009, 10:32:15 PM
I do not enjoy the show Torchwood... In fact I have been known to say it sucks sweaty gerbil gonads since about mid season 1.   Now with that said, if you are a Who fan go download the Torchwood 5 part miniseries Children of Earth.   

It is right up there with some of the very best of Who.  Don't wanna toss out any spoilers to folks who haven't seen it but my god did they redeem themselves in a big way with this.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: JWIV on October 26, 2009, 11:45:44 AM
I'm slowly working my way through Season 1 of this right now.  Watching Empty Child & The Doctor Dances alone in the house after midnight was maybe not my best plan.  I was completely not expecting that level of creepiness from Dr. Who.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on October 26, 2009, 12:31:18 PM
Obviously you never watched Dr. Who from "behind the couch" as a child.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 26, 2009, 05:50:13 PM
Just remember to watch Blink in the middle of the day. With friends around.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on October 26, 2009, 06:34:38 PM
I've just rewatched the library, both parts, on iPlayer. God that was a great episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 27, 2009, 07:55:42 AM
The Library episode is really just about my favorite in the entire history of the series, especially the second part.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on October 29, 2009, 04:53:38 PM
Oh man, rewatching the series 4 finale and I had totally forgotten how awesome German speaking Daleks are.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on November 05, 2009, 02:54:19 PM
Waters of Mars trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YyNly0uEmA)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on November 05, 2009, 03:07:24 PM
Iiiiinteresting.

I think I'm getting now why the Doctor apparently freaks out when he realizes where and when he is. This is going to be one of those times where he's expressly not supposed to change how things turn out, and I'm guessing that he's gonna eventually feel compelled to break the rules and pay a price.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on November 05, 2009, 03:51:06 PM
I'm really gonna miss Tennant.  I don't have any high hopes for the new Dr.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ard on November 05, 2009, 04:15:39 PM
You know, to be fair, I didn't have much hope for Tennant when Eccleston left.  I'm willing to at least see how it turns out given how absolutely right Tennant was for the role after all.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on November 05, 2009, 07:25:14 PM
You know, to be fair, I didn't have much hope for Tennant when Eccleston left.  I'm willing to at least see how it turns out given how absolutely right Tennant was for the role after all.

This.  And it took me a few episodes to warm up to Tennant, or for him to find the character, I'm not sure which.  I'll give the new guy the benefit of the doubt for at least that long.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on November 06, 2009, 08:39:33 AM
Some new pics of the new Doctor out. He doesn't look nearly as bad as that first Twilighty picture suggested. Still not sure what it's going to be like though.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on November 06, 2009, 09:59:41 AM
Umm.. ya.. I'm not in love with that Kate Gosselin haircut there.    :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 07, 2009, 12:34:30 PM
You know, to be fair, I didn't have much hope for Tennant when Eccleston left.  I'm willing to at least see how it turns out given how absolutely right Tennant was for the role after all.

This.  And it took me a few episodes to warm up to Tennant, or for him to find the character, I'm not sure which.  I'll give the new guy the benefit of the doubt for at least that long.

Kinda this.  In a way.

Difference for me is Tennant got it straight away for me (his intro in the Christmas Invasion worked for me so very well) and, well, new guy still doesn't look right.  Hard to explain.

Ye Gods, that picture.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on November 13, 2009, 02:30:04 PM
Some new pics of the new Doctor out. He doesn't look nearly as bad as that first Twilighty picture suggested. Still not sure what it's going to be like though.


Robert Smith - the makeup + J. Crew  + a dash of Brooks Brothers =  :facepalm:

I hope for the best, and me being me I know I will watch each and every episode even if this guy is as bad as the dark years in the 80s.  It was a bit of a shock when I realized that for the first time ever I will be older than the actor playing the Doctor.




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: AutomaticZen on November 14, 2009, 02:32:44 PM
That was the first thing that struck me.  That I was older than the Doctor finally.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on November 15, 2009, 02:12:51 PM
Why can't every episode be like that one?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on November 15, 2009, 04:09:48 PM
That was a really awesome episode. Thanks for reminding me it was on.

Edit:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on November 15, 2009, 11:02:44 PM
We have to wait till next month in the States. >_<


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on November 15, 2009, 11:48:13 PM
That was a really awesome episode. Thanks for reminding me it was on.

Edit:

I didn't pick that up... nice have to go back and hear it.

that was a smashing episode.....



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on November 15, 2009, 11:49:12 PM
We have to wait till next month in the States. >_<

http://www.bitcomet.com/


... Just sayin


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on November 16, 2009, 12:22:51 AM
Yaup, I just found it, thanks. Yeah, woah. I wish I could form some coherent sentence, but just...woah.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on November 16, 2009, 12:29:57 AM
And damn, the production value of that was high! I don't know if they saved money by going with just a few episodes this season, but it seems they put a lot into this one. I'd be happy if they kept this up. Maybe a few more episodes though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 16, 2009, 03:16:15 AM
Wasn't a fan of Tinkerbell the Dalek.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on November 16, 2009, 07:32:13 AM
I liked the unwritten hint that even the Daleks knew that


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 16, 2009, 09:25:21 AM
Which would be fine if it made ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER.

But it doesn't. 

The Dalek would have fired.  No matter what.  It was just wedging WANK into an episode that didn't need it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on November 16, 2009, 09:45:49 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 16, 2009, 09:50:42 AM
I liked it more than I disliked it.

You know me;  I wouldn't be me if there wasn't SOMETHING that bugged the fucked outta me.  Tinkerbell was it.

It did reinforce how very much I am going to miss David though.  I'm sure it wasn't only me that saw at the end how well he would have also played The Master.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on November 16, 2009, 09:51:09 AM
The first 55 minutes were awesome.  The last 6 were a chasm of infinite retardation.  All-Star Doctor Who came out of nowhere and was idiotic enough, but the fact he got past it 30 seconds later was pure  :awesome_for_real: 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on November 16, 2009, 11:57:37 AM
Really? It's not like we haven't seen him in that sort of mode before, they've been foreshadowing that sort of attitude and Doctor for pretty much the whole of Tennant's run.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 16, 2009, 12:59:32 PM
Family of Blood showed just how HARDCORE he was.

He trapped a little girl in a mirror for fucks sake.

A MIRROR.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on November 16, 2009, 09:47:16 PM
 AFter thinking it about it today and getting over the :Love_Letters: of new Who.

Tinkerbell was silly and did not fit into Dalek Lore at all (even if she was a fixed point in time yada yada, a Dalek wouldn't care)

Bringing those people back to the earth was so risky, hell bringing that robot back was a risk.  That was straight up Russian Roulette with the world. ( and as Vanilla Ice said in Cool as Ice "thats a straight up fact Yo!")

I think it would have had far more impact if it had ended as he walked away listening to them all die over the radio.  Even if his "surprise I can break the rules" bit is just to move the plot forward for the end of David T's reign.. it was as clumsy as a tree sloth after a 4 day binge on cough syrup and ritalin.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on November 16, 2009, 10:15:38 PM
As poorly done as the "Are you retarded or something?  I'm the goddamn Time Lord!" was, I still would have been ok with it that phase of his life lasted more than THIRTY SECONDS.  Even when Peter Parker refused to fight crime and went to class instead with his cool new haircut, we got 20 or 30 minutes out of it.  Couldn't they have gotten a whole season or at least a few episodes out of that? 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on November 17, 2009, 01:12:45 AM
Great episode over all. Sufficiently tense and creepy, and even if it was a little odd, the ending was unexpected, which is always good.

I find it funny that you guys are tearing apart details like Tinkerbell... The one thing that bugged me the most, was the Doctor standing on the surface of Mars in a space suit... with fires burning from the wreckage. Fire. On the surface of Mars.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 17, 2009, 04:04:05 AM
Those are mundane problems with it.

We're more highbrow.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Righ on November 17, 2009, 09:06:04 AM
I acquired and watched the Waters of Mars last night. It's a very good episode - well written, produced and acted. Watching Lindsay Duncan in a decent role made me watch to watch GBH again. Tennant is superb, and plays the dark aspects of The Doctor's character brilliantly. I'm glad that he's leaving because I have no confidence that the writing will remain up to the current high standards. Of course, I would love to have seen what he could do with Michael Moorcock's undoubtedly original take on the character, although there is no indication at this point that the book that Moorcock is planning to write (http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showthread.php?t=12620) will be made into a screenplay.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on November 17, 2009, 11:23:54 AM
The Doctor's new companion: Moonglum   :drillf:


wow that is, just wow... I will certainly be buying that book.

By Arioch my Sonic Screwdriver shall suck your soul!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on December 25, 2009, 02:33:10 PM
Well, that was certainly....something.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on December 25, 2009, 11:54:10 PM
It's amazing how no matter how little I expect from Doctor Who anymore, I seem to get a little less than that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on December 26, 2009, 04:58:17 AM
Best thing about RTD quitting is that they may be able to get an actual script editor in. I mean, that was like he wrote a rough first draft and then went "fuck it, it's good enough. Let's roll!"


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on December 26, 2009, 08:48:18 AM
It's on in the US tonight and the last bit is on January 2.  (in case anyone didn't remember)  There is some show named "Demons" on after that has the boss guy from Life on Mars in it. There wasn't a description of the show but I finally saw a trailer and it seems to be yet another vampire thingy.  I'm so tired of vampires.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on December 26, 2009, 01:50:48 PM
I'd be lying if I said I didn't see that coming.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on December 26, 2009, 07:36:38 PM
Very good. I'm going to miss Tennant and Davies, that's for sure.


WHAT will happen next?.?.?.?.? (Trying to make may question marks not look like sadface!)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on December 29, 2009, 12:29:17 PM
What was with the spittle from Time Lord Dalton?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 29, 2009, 12:53:39 PM
That's what REAL Actors do ! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkSWB1tRntY)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on December 29, 2009, 01:07:27 PM
Anyhoo, it was indeed a pretty rough script, I think. RTD's fetishes have definitely outstayed their welcome, though lots of credit to him for making the series as a whole really viable again. The best Eccleston and Tennant episodes (whatever you think of the actors' take on the character) are better than anything in the pre-RTD history of the series as stories, IMHO. There's been some great thinking about the character, his situation, and so on under Davies. Just...I don't want to see any more "dumbfuck plutocrat/bureaucrat who fatuously miscalculates his ability to control magic technology that he scarcely understands through working with demonstrably evil collaborator(s)". I'm kind of done with the whole celebrity-worship thing. And so on.

The funny thing is that RTD's best moments have almost always been the quiet scenes, not the spectacles: the scene in the cafe and the Doctor and Master reminscing were the best here, for example.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on December 29, 2009, 01:27:43 PM
About the cafe scene-



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on December 29, 2009, 01:37:32 PM
I liked Part 1. But:



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 29, 2009, 01:50:13 PM
Spoilers ?  Really ?

Well, ok.

Anyone who didn't see this coming the minute 'Dalek' aired is an idiot.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on December 30, 2009, 01:39:07 PM



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on December 30, 2009, 05:05:09 PM
I really didn't get the Master in this one, what is it with RTD and finales equalling sudden new magical powers for whoever it might look cool for? Overall I didn't dislike it, as others have said the quiet moments that involve some thinking about explanations and let the actors really work without effects or explosions are his best moments, though I can imagine having a very different attitude if I was 12 and watching it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 31, 2009, 03:34:33 AM
I'm slightly annoyed that we seem to be pushing the 'kids these days won't like a villain that just thinks'.

No, he has to shoot lightning.

Jesus.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on December 31, 2009, 12:45:23 PM
I'd love to see the Master be more cerebral, less flamboyantly whacko, in some future version.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 01, 2010, 02:05:26 PM
What I really needed to see tonight was an old gay man wanking off.

Thanks BBC.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on January 01, 2010, 03:40:40 PM
Bearing in mind the complete train-wreck part one was, the fact we got anything even remotely coherent in part two was a bonus, LoTR ending notwithstanding.
And hey! RTD and Murray Gold have now officially, finally fucked off!  :drill:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on January 01, 2010, 05:15:46 PM
The Master was such a great character last time he was in the show. Hopefully he'll have regenerated again before we see him again, as although John Simm is great, his version of the character has been spoiled for me.

Who was that woman then?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on January 01, 2010, 05:40:35 PM
Take your pick from:
Romana
Susan
Another female relative of the Doctor (wife, or mother, or sister, or whatever).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 02, 2010, 12:07:06 AM
Woo spoilers...

I'll give the new kid a chance. But anyone seen the trailer? Yeesh.




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 02, 2010, 12:09:27 AM
Take your pick from:
Romana
Susan
Another female relative of the Doctor (wife, or mother, or sister, or whatever).

What woman? The booksigning girl? Cause that confused me. Or the aid with the hands over her eyes? Wasn't that


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 02, 2010, 12:26:17 AM
Take your pick from:
Romana
Susan
Another female relative of the Doctor (wife, or mother, or sister, or whatever).

When she dropped her hands and we got a look at her the first thing I thought was that it's Donna.

Timey Wimey.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 02, 2010, 01:36:25 AM
Book Signing Girl (http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Verity_Newman)

Shit, if she was in it, they should have had Madame de Pompadour too.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 02, 2010, 06:18:23 AM
No.  You can't have Pompadour or Sally Sparrow, because that would just remind the audience of the GOOD episodes, rather than this sad old pile of utter fuckshite.




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on January 02, 2010, 01:35:35 PM
I don't feel the love for the new Doctor yet. His introduction was like a bad parody of 10s introduction. And I mean both the written text and how it was played.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on January 02, 2010, 08:58:22 PM
Meh. We'll see if they can regenerate any enthusiasm with the next season.

I didn't see the preview for the next bit, but a newly regenerated Doctor stranded on Earth with a busticated Tardis has been done.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on January 02, 2010, 10:05:01 PM
I saw the preview. He uses a gun and he punches people and his catch phrase is "Geronimo" instead of Allons-y.

I'll wait and see on this one, but my hopes aren't very high.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on January 03, 2010, 08:45:31 AM
As my gf was saying throughout the "reflection/revisitation" part of the finale... wtf?! I figure it was because Tennant was so well received and had such a long run, but seriously, when has a doctor got to die slowly and go back to see all his former companions?

My thoughts:

New doctor has a huge forehead - aside from that, he seemed to (from the brief intro) capture the quirkiness - to be determined later
Martha and "Ricky" married . . . meh, did not like either of these characters so having them together is double the blah
Capt Jack - is this the beginning threads of a new Torchwood? - also the bar with all the past aliens from the series was  :drill: felt very much felt like Mos Eisley in a way
Rose - given her "alter" in another continuum, I can justify seeing her retrospective of meeting the doctor, but she had a huge run and this felt fizzled/flat. And man did Billie look different
Verity Newman - no opinion other than a wtf? I guess that episode/s were bigger than I thought

I would have liked a tie in with his daughter (http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor%27s_Daughter) and River Song (http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/River_Song)

edit: to add links


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: fuser on January 03, 2010, 10:10:35 PM
As my gf was saying throughout the "reflection/revisitation" part of the finale... wtf?! I figure it was because Tennant was so well received and had such a long run, but seriously, when has a doctor got to die slowly and go back to see all his former companions?

Yeah the whole regeneration was covered in like 5-10mins with Eccleston. Considering its now in his 9th regeneration how is a three to four year stint more meaningful then the previous (ie the lines about how old "he" was).  There was a big focus on the end of the doctors life, but if he was obviously able to regenerate why the big worry. RTD seemed to have the episode(s) plot flirting with killing the doctor off but a viewer knew it was going to be a regeneration due to the whole hoopla of the new doctor.

It was total drivel.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: gryeyes on January 03, 2010, 10:19:03 PM
Because its more along the lines of cloning in The Prestige and not regenerating a damaged limb. And for whatever reason this incarnation was more attached to his person including a long time to reflect about the death. I am really not feeling the new guy all haterism aside.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on January 03, 2010, 11:17:52 PM
Since he doesn't currently have a Companion I think it's going to be a little harder to figure what the new doctor is all about. After the last regeneration we could see how his relationship with Rose changed to get a better idea of his style - plus he had more incentive to imitate the old doctor in his personality so as not to freak her out even more than she already was.

The new doctor is going to have a lot more freedom to be different this time around.

edit: snakes!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on January 04, 2010, 12:47:55 AM
Well, I must say I was a little underwhelmed by the final episode. It struck me that there seemed to be a lot that was cut out that may be added later in a DVD release. I got the same feeling with the third Lord of the Rings film and Watchmen. Especially the whole final confrontation scene.

That said, I liked the ending bits.  Definitely the most dramatic regen ever.

And if ever there was a question as to whether my daughter was my biological offspring, it was answered Saturday night. She positively bawled as much as I did back in '84 when I saw Tom Baker pass on the controls to Peter Davidson. Tennant was pretty much the only Doctor she'd ever known and she was heart broken. I think I even saw the wife shed a tear or three. Won't lie. I did too.

Am looking forward to the new Doctor though. His initial presence suggests a bit of a Douglas Adams touch to the character. Bit over the top but I liked it. His still photos didn't do him justice.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 04, 2010, 03:42:22 AM
You did hear the name.  If you'd listened carefully, you'll also have heard me throwing something at the screen.

It wasn't Rassilon.  All I can think of is that they used the name as a title later on, or some such other UTTER WANK.  No doubt RTD will explain it all eventually while doing cocaine and grapes of a wee fit 21 year old boys arse.

Sigh.

Just forget it.  It was wank of the highest order.  I thought the last two Dalek endings were bad.  This was utterly atrocious.

As to the new Doc, he reminded me of Pertwee already, despite just being handed RTD's regeneration lines to bleat out like some kind of sheep of Tenant and Eccleston.  I think he'll do fine with a good writer.  I'm looking forward to his companion (who I imagine he'll pick up 1st or 2nd episode) since she's a total biscuit.  It'll be nice to have a total biscuit again.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on January 04, 2010, 04:38:25 AM
I am on the fence regarding the 11th doctor, but I approve of his choice in companions.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on January 04, 2010, 09:46:23 AM
On Timothy Dalton
The whole thing was big but lots of felt really like they were throwing in stuff that sounded big and visually impressive but just came off looking silly, out of place and really not Who. I also kind of liked the new Doctor though as others have said we really haven't had a chance to see him yet. He used a gun in that trailer but we've no idea what he was shooting, could be a warning shot or a piece of equipment. I have enough faith that they won't completely fuck the character like that. New companion is just my type, no complaints there. Also Weeping Angels :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 04, 2010, 10:26:42 AM
Meh. Now that it's revealed the Time Lords are locked in the Time War, they can (and probably will) bring them back all the time.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on January 04, 2010, 11:47:11 AM
[quote author=Ironwood link=topic=14493.msg750677#msg750677  I'm looking forward to his companion (who I imagine he'll pick up 1st or 2nd episode) since she's a total biscuit.  It'll be nice to have a total biscuit again.
[/quote]

I agree.  We've had enough of Welsh, old, and kind-of-pretty-in-a-London-sort-of-way (Rose).  Martha was the only hot one, and she was the companion the Doctor liked the least.  I was afraid they were going to bring in that horrible horrible gap-toothed woman from Torchwood.

And is it true that


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on January 04, 2010, 01:23:58 PM
What does it mean "we've had enough of Welsh"?  I'm not advocating more Welsh, or anything, just wondering if that means anything in particular.   


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on January 04, 2010, 01:42:48 PM
He might remember you accusing me of hating the Welsh after I commented about that horrible gap toothed woman in Torchwood.  After that, I thought you had a thing about the Welsh so I went out of my way to mention them in a negative way once in a while. :grin:

Besides, they all have silly names like Rhys and Daffyd. We don't need any more of that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on January 04, 2010, 02:15:59 PM
He might remember you accusing me of hating the Welsh after I commented about that horrible gap toothed woman in Torchwood.  After that, I thought you had a thing about the Welsh so I went out of my way to mention them in a negative way once in a while. :grin:

Besides, they all have silly names like Rhys and Daffyd. We don't need any more of that.

I'm sorry, Signe's avatar was distracting me... you were saying?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on January 04, 2010, 03:10:54 PM
You fuckers need to stop bagging on Gwen from Torchwood. I liked her.

But End of Time, YECH. What the fuck?


The whole Doctor visits his companions send off was definite wankery. We already had the RD farewell tour in the finale episode of the Donna season. We didn't need it again. Nice to see Capt. Jack try to hookup with the werewolf from Being Human (I wonder if he'll be a character on Torchwood next season) and I liked Mickey and Martha together. But we didn't need all that. This could have easily been an hour long show without the padding and would have been better, though still not good. I like the trailer for the new season, and have no real complaints about the new Doctor and especially not about the new hottie.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 04, 2010, 05:18:37 PM
Rose was pretty, Martha was definitely the hottest, but I'd totally fuck Gwen over all the rest because she seems like a freaky spanky hair puller. If you don't like Gwen you're clearly afraid of girls.

That was the werewolf from Being Human? Nice! I need to watch that show more.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on January 04, 2010, 05:36:36 PM
I didn't mind Jack's resolution


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 04, 2010, 06:56:38 PM
What do people mean by "RTD wankery?" Just wondering.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 04, 2010, 06:58:49 PM



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on January 04, 2010, 07:18:37 PM
Rose was pretty, Martha was definitely the hottest, but I'd totally fuck Gwen over all the rest because she seems like a freaky spanky hair puller. If you don't like Gwen you're clearly afraid of girls.

That was the werewolf from Being Human? Nice! I need to watch that show more.

Gentlemen... shortly no one will remember any of those "others." Let us focus on the future and not on the past.

(http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/karen-gillan-000.jpg)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on January 05, 2010, 02:11:32 AM
Rose was pretty, Martha was definitely the hottest, but I'd totally fuck Gwen over all the rest because she seems like a freaky spanky hair puller. If you don't like Gwen you're clearly afraid of girls.

That was the werewolf from Being Human? Nice! I need to watch that show more.

Gentlemen... shortly no one will remember any of those "others." Let us focus on the future and not on the past.

(http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/karen-gillan-000.jpg)

(http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk112/Fraeg/sallysparrow.jpg)

I was hoping for Sally Sparrow especially given that we will see the angels from Blink again.  Just finished watching part two.... and I think we can safely say we will see the master yet again /sigh.  As pretty much everyone else here has said... they threw way too much crap into those two episodes.  That said... it is what it is... hopefully Matt Smith can pick up the ball and run with it.


Also maybe it is just that photo but that ginger looks like pedo bear material to me.  She looks about 16 to 17 to my eyes.  Again I was really hoping for a Sally Sparrow re-up


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2010, 03:06:56 AM
Sixteen is legal over here.


....


Just Sayin'.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on January 05, 2010, 03:13:12 AM

Also maybe it is just that photo but that ginger looks like pedo bear material to me.  She looks about 16 to 17 to my eyes.  Again I was really hoping for a Sally Sparrow re-up

Nope she's 21-22 years old.

(http://blogs.sundaymercury.net/anorak-city/karengillan.png)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2010, 03:19:50 AM
 :ye_gods:

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on January 05, 2010, 05:42:09 AM
What do people mean by "RTD wankery?" Just wondering.

Russell T Davies is the guy behind bringin the Doctor back and really managed to make it a success again. The wankery refers to his habit of doing ridiculous, grandiose things (like the massive overblown finales) or generally taking a lot of control over Doctor Who lore stuff. He's done new things like evolving the Daleks and throwing Rassilon in this that don't really fit with established lore, basically going, "I saved the Doctor and so I can change it however I like." Those moments also tend to involve the worse writing, which really doesn't help him.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2010, 05:47:59 AM
It's Lucas syndrome all over again.  Don't get me wrong;  massive kudos to the chap for bringing it back and so very, very successfully -  but he never learned to let go and he never learned to take advice that what he was writing was just awful.

Moffat did some of the better episodes, so it's kind of good that he's taken over, but he's also another MASSIVE ego, so I'm hoping he doesn't fall into the same trap.

Girl in the Fireplace and Blink are STILL the best Who episodes of the 'New' lot.  If I had to pick an Eccelstone one, it'd probably be Dalek, but only for the passion that our boy Chris put into the performance.

And the Dalek sucking the face off someone.  That was awesome.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sunbury on January 05, 2010, 08:40:29 AM

I'm confused about the part where the Time Lords send the 4-drum-beat to The Master when he was a child.

 - Is that what made him evil / insane over the whole course of Dr. Who, or just made him 'extra'  evil / insane?

 - If the drum beat signal is what made him insane, and he would have been a normal upstanding Time Lord otherwise,  then how would the Time Lords know to send him the signal, since he would not have been 'involved' with The Doctor the whole time?   
 
   The seer detected The Master and The Doctor still out there, and they got the idea to send the signal, so at that moment in time, the Master did not yet get the signal - SO HE WOULD NOT BE THE MASTER!    Time Paradox!    Unless of course he was still the Master, still evil / insane, and the drum beats made him 'extra insane'.

  BUT at the end, he blames the Time Lords making him insane via the drum beats, which contradicts that.

  Dr Who series, new and old, have been pretty careful with time paradoxes, either using an alternate universe, or a rewind, or a universe corrects itself, so this seems odd to me.

  No one appears to be talking about this anywhere, so I must be missing something?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2010, 08:42:11 AM
You're missing a vital and important point;  It's total fucking wanking hackery writing of the highest sort.

I mean, come on to fuck.  The old women with the eyes could PROJECT herself to SPEAK to fucking WILF.

So what the FUCK was the NEED for a TEMPORAL FUCKING SIGNAL ???


IT'S UTTER SHITE.  FROM START TO FINISH.  FORGET IT HAPPENED.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on January 05, 2010, 08:48:06 AM
I liked Gwen but, on the whole, I didn't find too much to like about Torchwood.  I just thought maybe there was some sort of strange new Welshery going on that upset people.  I might have defended Gwen in comparison to other Dr Who/Torchwood actors but I'm pretty sure it couldn't have anything to do with her Welshiness.  I probably defended her teeth, mostly.  I like the gap. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: AutomaticZen on January 05, 2010, 08:50:57 AM
I liked Gwen but, on the whole, I didn't find too much to like about Torchwood.  I just thought maybe there was some sort of strange new Welshery going on that upset people.  I might have defended Gwen in comparison to other Dr Who/Torchwood actors but I'm pretty sure it couldn't have anything to do with her Welshiness.  I probably defended her teeth, mostly.  I like the gap. 

My problem with Torchwood is they were the worst secret organization dedicated to solving shit ever.

The entire first season is them failing and failing over and over, while having sex.

You just sit there screaming, "WHY DO THESE RETARDS HAVE ALL THIS COOL SHIT!  STOP HAVING SEX!"


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on January 05, 2010, 09:00:34 AM
But they're gay! What else are they meant to be doing? :oh_i_see: Also the Time Lords/Master thing makes no logical sense because they never explain what the fuck something being 'time locked' means, aside from the fact that an old woman with good intentions manages to do more than fucking 'in charge of black holes and reality leaks' Rassilon himself can do. They seemed to be operating in the present (although Time Lord time has always worked in a fairly odd way in relation to wherever else the Doctor is operating.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2010, 09:33:21 AM
If you want, when I get home, we can actually discuss this rationally and talk about how 'stuff works' in Dr Who.

But you have to be aware that it'll merely present you with a view that totally contradicts that two parter pile of keech.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on January 05, 2010, 09:34:42 AM
You know what the 4 beat drum beat is don't you? It's not just the heart beat of a Time Lord. It's the bass beat to the original theme. I thought that was pretty neat once it dawned on me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on January 05, 2010, 09:42:32 AM
If you want, when I get home, we can actually discuss this rationally and talk about how 'stuff works' in Dr Who.

But you have to be aware that it'll merely present you with a view that totally contradicts that two parter pile of keech.


That's obviously because the whole Time War was Time Locked with the Time Lords trapped by some form of Time Key no doubt and thus it all makes perfect sense and doesn't contradict anything :uhrr: I know explanations largely rely on an inability to cross one's own timeline (except for rare exceptions made by the Time Lords). This time RTD basically seemed to use the time lock as element handwavium that makes all of this possible.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on January 05, 2010, 09:45:11 AM
Time-locked basically means that the whole of the war was locked in a bubble that couldn't be breached from without or within. Those events and those places were sort of sealed up in a pocket universe where no one could get in or out.

As for RTD wankery, of fucking course it was, it was the end of Tennant's run as the Doctor. RTD felt he had to go out by foiling someone as legendarily evil as Rassilon. The Master alone wasn't enough. Someone else here said it, it had to be Epic.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on January 05, 2010, 10:11:08 AM
It had a chance to be Epic but it ended up being wankery spankery faily waily.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on January 05, 2010, 10:11:17 AM
I have to admit, the pictures on the previous page just induced a moment of mouth hanging openess for me. I'd purposly avoided looking for pictures of the new companion up until now, just wanting to be suprised.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on January 05, 2010, 10:16:12 AM
Oh, no doubt. Compared to Billie Piper, I'd hit that like the fist of an angry timelord.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on January 05, 2010, 11:17:31 AM
Oh, no doubt. Compared to Billie Piper, I'd hit that like the fist of an angry timelord.

Soulja Boy Rassilon that ho?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 05, 2010, 11:18:09 AM
Oh, no doubt. Compared to Billie Piper, I'd hit that like the fist of an angry timelord.

LMAOx10!

Regarding the wankery, I thought people were talking about the angst, which is the real meat of the character for me. But some of that big splosion crap is okay too. Not all of it though. I'm glad I don't know who Rassilon was in previous series, otherwise I'm sure I'd be pissed right now! I don't even remember him being referred to as Rassilon. It was just The President. Don't tell me who Rassilon was! I'm happy in my ignorance! (Okay, I'll look it up later.)

Was that glove of his the matching pair of the Ressurection Gauntlet from Torchwood?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on January 05, 2010, 11:26:22 AM
Negative, the second of those gauntlets was used to resurrect Owen.

Quote
Soulja Boy Rassilon that ho?

Indeed. But only after I knocked four times.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2010, 12:55:40 PM
Would seem that all the pics are coming out of the woodwork now...



Low quality, of course, but it does give one....ideas.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on January 05, 2010, 01:02:42 PM
Would seem that all the pics are coming out of the woodwork now...



Low quality, of course, but it does give one....ideas.

Stop god damn you...   :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2010, 01:02:51 PM
Ok, so, I just watched the 'new' season trailer for the first time.

Hmmm.

There would seem to be a lot to like in there.  He doesn't look as bad 'in motion' as stills would make out and the assistant has a real 'Polly' vibe going on.

Also, Skaro.  Clearly.  Or Old 'new' Daleks at least.  Plus, what looked like Sea Devils.

Hmmm.

Dammit.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: AutomaticZen on January 05, 2010, 01:10:35 PM
I get the feeling that he was so young that the costume designer decided the 'Old Professor' look was needed.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on January 05, 2010, 01:12:17 PM
I figure the trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnPUF8an-XE) should be represented... albeit youtube'd.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on January 05, 2010, 02:15:43 PM
Well, the trailer looks like fun.  Sometimes all the best bits are on the trailer.  Let's hope that's not the case will this.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on January 05, 2010, 02:18:12 PM
Soo I wonder what the Tardis is gonna look on the inside.  I wonder if they are gonna revamp it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2010, 02:20:31 PM
Apparently so.

Which is why, I think, you see him working on the underside in the trailer.

It did get bashed to fuck in the last one.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on January 05, 2010, 02:49:16 PM
I figured when they had the whole regeneration part trash the Tardis.  I don't really think they needed to, but I'm sure it's all part of the "New Who".


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on January 05, 2010, 03:37:56 PM
Have to have a new "modern retro" TARDIS that the kids can get behind  :why_so_serious:

But seriously... Dr Who v11.0?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on January 05, 2010, 04:10:35 PM
Have to have a new "modern retro" TARDIS that the kids can get behind  :why_so_serious:

But seriously... Dr Who v11.0?

Well aren't they calling this Season 1 again, or something like that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on January 05, 2010, 07:38:23 PM
I'd be happy with a Tardis redesign. I've been annoyed that it was only *slightly* bigger on the inside in the new series. The old series made it out that it was HUGE inside. And I really didn't like the organic feel to it. I hope they change the desktop theme from the current coral motiff.  ;)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 06, 2010, 06:33:54 AM
That's the second time you've said something daft.

The new control room is probably twice the size of any of the previous seasons.  You realise you're just seeing the control room, right ?  Some of the episodes took you to the other rooms.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sunbury on January 06, 2010, 07:56:40 AM
There was a whole Tom Baker era series spent in the Tardis, going down like 20 floors or something.   

I think another series he had to jettison a whole block of it.

I need to look up and buy those episodes on DVD.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on January 06, 2010, 08:54:06 AM
And didn't watsisname, you know, Tristan- rummage through other rooms to find something nice to wear?  Or was that the other one?  Paul Merroney? 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on January 06, 2010, 04:20:52 PM
Was that glove of his the matching pair of the Ressurection Gauntlet from Torchwood?

Rassilon was the first Time Lord to master the power source that lets Time Lords travel through time, basically he's the guy recorded as leading them from being Gallifreyans to being Time Lords. Also meant to be a long time dead, he's been portrayed as a great hero and a crazed despot (though not actually in the series, only as part of the related history) The Lord President was the name of the office of the leader of the Time Lords, Tom Baker Dr. was Lord President at one point. The glove he was holding is probably the glove of Rassilon, the staff is probably the staff of Rassilon and if he has a sash on it's the staff of Rassilon. The Time Lords named a lot of shit after him and then kept it around.

The new Dr.'s look is (according an interview I read) because they want to focus on the character as being at once young and old. I'm thinking they're going to take Tennant's moment with Wilf at the end and expand on that as the direction for the new Dr.'s character.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on January 06, 2010, 05:26:43 PM
There was a whole Tom Baker era series spent in the Tardis, going down like 20 floors or something.   

I think another series he had to jettison a whole block of it.

I need to look up and buy those episodes on DVD.

I think it was in a Pertwee episode that they actually showed the original Hartnell (Doctor 1) era control room, and Pertwee said something like "oh yes, this old thing, I didn't care much for it so I made a new one).  Hmm the is a bit of a non-sequitor, but the point being that the inside of the tardis is immense. I enjoyed those old episodes that revealed parts of the tardis beyond the simple control room.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Righ on January 07, 2010, 10:13:25 AM
I'm looking forward to his companion (who I imagine he'll pick up 1st or 2nd episode) since she's a total biscuit.  It'll be nice to have a total biscuit again.

Of whom Steven Moffat says:

Quote
We saw some amazing actresses for this part. But when Karen came through the door, the game was up - she was funny, clever, gorgeous and sexy. Or Scottish, which is the quick way of saying it."

So true.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on January 07, 2010, 01:36:20 PM
That's the second time you've said something daft.

The new control room is probably twice the size of any of the previous seasons.  You realise you're just seeing the control room, right ?  Some of the episodes took you to the other rooms.


Only the second? I'm going to have to try harder. (not sure what the first one was).

I honestly don't remember any of the other rooms being shown. I just remember that the older series usually showed more of the inside than the new ones do.  Watching it here in America hasn't been kind in the way of continuity. Syfy had it a while ago and then I just started catching up again on BBC America (just got that). There's a lot of the new series that I've either forgotten or missed due to the programming schedule over here. And me being daft as well.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 07, 2010, 03:27:46 PM
And didn't watsisname, you know, Tristan- rummage through other rooms to find something nice to wear?  Or was that the other one?  Paul Merroney? 

Tennant did that. Heh. He found Tom baker's old scarf, that was funny.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on January 07, 2010, 03:53:19 PM
And didn't someone get lost in the Tardis in one show?  I don't remember which Doctor, though.  Probably one with or after Tom Baker.  I didn't really care much for the show before him.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on January 07, 2010, 03:57:52 PM
There was one episode during the Baker years where they went through a good portion of the Tardis trying to find someone for something. I think they even spent a few episodes in an older, Pertwee era control room (with the wood paneling that looked like a 1920's cruise ship cabin) because of it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on January 07, 2010, 06:19:36 PM
The Master was such a great character last time he was in the show. Hopefully he'll have regenerated again before we see him again, as although John Simm is great, his version of the character has been spoiled for me.

Who was that woman then?

from Gallifrey Base forum:

CONFIRMED: "The Woman" IS "The Doctor's Mother":

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey all,

I managed to get an early copy of The Writers Tale 2 today and in the cast list right at the start, it has:
"Claire Boom - the Woman (the Doctor's mother) in Doctor Who 4.17/4.18"

Most of us already knew it of course, but it's really nice to have one of The End Of Time's biggest mysteries cleared up!
There's no proof of course to say that I've got it, but I work for a newspaper who do book reviews, and I was kindly allowed the duplicate copy, which I was thrilled about!
If it's under any kind of embargo, then I do apologise.  


Perhaps I am missed something but how the hell were we supposed to know it was his mother?

*edit* not sure just how reliable this source is.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on January 08, 2010, 12:33:37 AM
Fuck that noise. As far as I'm concerned, it was Romana. Even if RTD himself walks up to me and says, "It was his mum." I'll punch the fucker in the throat.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 08, 2010, 02:36:05 AM
I approve of that logic.  Take what comfort you can from shitty, shitty writing by making the thing your own.


Of course, two abstentions, one male, one female, both older.  The symbolism was fairly clear from the start.  However, it's just shite.  Utter, utter, utter shite.  It makes no sense to suddenly pull parents out of the closet, which means it's almost certainly what RTD was trying to do.  ARG.  We owe him SO MUCH for bringing it back and all I want to do is HIT HIM WITH A BIT OF WOOD.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 08, 2010, 12:57:37 PM
I'm still convinced it was Wilfred's wife because it makes more sense to me that Donna is the granddaughter of a Time Lord. (Time Lady?)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Engels on January 08, 2010, 02:07:01 PM
This thread has inspired me to rewatch the Key of Time story arc on Netflix


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on January 09, 2010, 03:18:38 PM
Of course it was the Doctor's mother. I don't see how you could think it was anyone else based on the doe-eyed look the Doctor gave when she was mentioned. Are you pissed that he had a mother or that Davies teased us with it and then didn't rub it in our gobs? Yes, it's shite - it was in the End of Time. There was maybe 3 minutes of good writing in End of Time, the rest was as Ironwood said, utter shite.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on January 09, 2010, 04:31:09 PM
Of course it was the Doctor's mother. I don't see how you could think it was anyone else based on the doe-eyed look the Doctor gave when she was mentioned. Are you pissed that he had a mother or that Davies teased us with it and then didn't rub it in our gobs? Yes, it's shite - it was in the End of Time. There was maybe 3 minutes of good writing in End of Time, the rest was as Ironwood said, utter shite.

It's probably something most won't consider as canon (and probably want to forget) but wasn't it revealed in the '96 movie that the Doctor's mother was human making him half human?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on January 09, 2010, 08:13:49 PM
I think that's one thing they've essentially said was a mistake, you didn't hear it, it was a metaphor or something.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on January 09, 2010, 10:31:05 PM
Watching the final 'Confidential' has made me hate RTD even more. Fuck.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on January 10, 2010, 06:17:45 PM
Watching the final 'Confidential' has made me hate RTD even more. Fuck.

really I was going to download it in the hopes that he would explain that shaggy dog of a story. All it did was piss you off though?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on January 10, 2010, 08:23:06 PM
So what was that woman going on about when she said she was "lost for so long" or whatever it was? Romana was lost in E-Space but we've never heard anything about the Doctor's mother being lost anywhere. Ah well, who gives a shit.

I've been watching older episodes recently on iPlayer and there were some great storylines in the earlier seasons.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on January 10, 2010, 10:30:50 PM
The missus and I just made it through the halfway mark of season one of the new series. She'd never seen the Eccelston episodes (with the exception of Boomtown, and the only reason I showed her that one out of order was so that she could make sense of the shit we saw in Cardiff.) They're definitely better when Davies isn't writing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on January 11, 2010, 12:33:01 AM
Eccleston was great as the Doctor. We were lucky to get two in a row as good as him and Tennant.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 11, 2010, 03:19:37 AM
Oh wow, okay yeah, I just looked up Moffat to see exactly what he's done, and he wrote most of my favorite episodes. Wow. I'm surprised he only wrote five episodes total. His was some good stuff.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 03, 2010, 01:30:10 PM
Well.

Ok.

Fair enough.

Next ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 03, 2010, 02:06:20 PM
Right.

The problem wasn't the Doctor.

Oddly.  He was okay.  Strangely.

Seriously worried about Moffats ego.

I may just post to this thread all night in a kinda stunned and annoyed way.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on April 03, 2010, 03:59:08 PM
Arrrgh. Must find it somewhere, or else wait another two weeks for BBCAmerica to air it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on April 03, 2010, 04:08:58 PM
That was... odd. Matt Smith was better than expected, girl was cute. Plot was thin, preview clips of the season looked awful. And another sweeping story arc, telegraphed blatantly from the first episode. oh joy.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on April 03, 2010, 10:06:19 PM
Holy crap, everywhere I look it's some odd compression that makes it like two or three frames per second and also look like ass.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tale on April 04, 2010, 12:51:22 AM
It's feelgood pantomime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantomime) for all ages.

Done quite well, I must admit. But still about "HE'S BEHIND YOU!".

New Doctor needs to gloat less and find his dark side.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 04, 2010, 02:28:59 AM
And another sweeping story arc, telegraphed blatantly from the first episode. oh joy.

Yes.  This was clumsy, obvious and, above all, entirely unwelcome.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on April 04, 2010, 08:57:45 AM
I thought it was pretty good overall. The new Doctor is all right after all, loved the "here's all the past Doctors, and now here I am" bit, and Amelia is  :heart: faaaaaantastic :heart:

I don't mind the Doctor being so smug, but the "oooo something's coming" bit, I agree, was an eye-roller.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on April 04, 2010, 11:26:10 AM
I just finished watching and enjoyed it. The new guy is an acceptable Doctor.

What's the problem with sweeping story arcs? Is this something you guys generally dislike or is it an old-school Doctor Who thing?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on April 04, 2010, 12:43:48 PM
The new doctor got me with the redhead companion and he himself has his own manic energy that is different enough from 10 to not dislike it.

Of course, the overall arch hints were quite heavy handed, and of course there will be new Cybermen and new (british) Daleks, but for now I give it the benefit of the doubt.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on April 04, 2010, 01:43:12 PM
I liked it. But I do agree the anvils were falling like rain.

There was a better way of handling that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on April 05, 2010, 07:31:01 AM
I hate you all... I have to wait till BBCAmerica starts it up since I am not allowed to watch it without the gf considering she got me into it. So this doctor, did they resurrect the scarf yet?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 05, 2010, 07:32:55 AM
Yeah, thats pissing me off too, I can't find any legal way to watch this.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 05, 2010, 08:01:13 AM
I've already paid for it with my licence fee.

You have my permission.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on April 05, 2010, 08:07:03 AM
I loved it, faults and all. Probably partly due to withdrawl, that I was able to look past any problems.

Now if they had only found a way to have her


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on April 05, 2010, 09:59:07 AM
Yes plz.  :drill:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 05, 2010, 11:53:51 AM
Playing along with the foreshadowing (I agree it was clumsy), what was he doing at the end with that equipment in the Tardis? It looked to me like he was maybe taking her voiceprint, as he waited for her to say something close to it before fiddling with it.


I like Amy as a character. She's a lot like Rose in that she has a useless boyfriend and seems to fancy the Doctor (although Mickey became a great character over time), but I'm guessing Amy is going to be more than Rose mk. 2.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 05, 2010, 11:59:21 AM
I just finished watching and enjoyed it. The new guy is an acceptable Doctor.

What's the problem with sweeping story arcs? Is this something you guys generally dislike or is it an old-school Doctor Who thing?

The thing with the arcs is that they often involve characters in the early episodes who seem mysteriously to know what's going to happen later and drop cryptic hints, to which the Doctor looks worried, and then whatever they've been talking about eventually happens. It just seems clumsy sometimes.

I enjoyed the arc in season three (the Martha season) because it was a bit more subtle and you could see with hindsight how the events in the various episodes fitted together.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on April 05, 2010, 12:07:48 PM
Ah ok, so it's not the idea of story arcs just complaints about badly done ones. I've only been watching for the last few years since the series came back. I thought maybe story arcs went against how the series was originally and that was what was pissing people off.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ard on April 05, 2010, 12:32:43 PM
The thing with the arcs is that they often involve characters in the early episodes who seem mysteriously to know what's going to happen later and drop cryptic hints, to which the Doctor looks worried, and then whatever they've been talking about eventually happens. It just seems clumsy sometimes.

I'm going to give Moffat the benefit of the doubt on this one for the time being.  Unlike RTD, he generally remembers that the Doctor is a time traveller, with all that entails.  Hopefully the overarching plot makes a bit more sense this time around.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 06, 2010, 06:30:45 AM
I fucking doubt it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 06, 2010, 06:32:05 AM
Playing along with the foreshadowing (I agree it was clumsy), what was he doing at the end with that equipment in the Tardis? It looked to me like he was maybe taking her voiceprint, as he waited for her to say something close to it before fiddling with it.


I like Amy as a character. She's a lot like Rose in that she has a useless boyfriend and seems to fancy the Doctor (although Mickey became a great character over time), but I'm guessing Amy is going to be more than Rose mk. 2.

In that scene they were both lying.  An interesting start to the relationship.

She's got a wedding to go to and he knows more about her than he lets on.


Wish I did.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on April 06, 2010, 10:38:45 PM
A co-worker tried to get me to watch the first episode today. I watched up until the opening credits before I stopped the player. I want to see this with the wife and daughter with no spoilers. The opening was cool enough that I will wait and watch this as intended. I like where it's going. Except the new opening theme. That's going to have to grow on me.

And now for a brief comic interlude (although I'm sure most have probably seen it):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q88kt_Vtyl4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q88kt_Vtyl4)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on April 07, 2010, 12:12:08 AM
Are you talking about the first episode of the latest series reboot from 2005 or the first episode in the current season?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on April 07, 2010, 05:43:09 AM
Are you talking about the first episode of the latest series reboot from 2005 or the first episode in the current season?

Current season. It doesn't premier until 4/17 over here.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on April 10, 2010, 01:16:42 PM
That felt a bit like a lost McCoy episode, but in a good way.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 10, 2010, 01:18:31 PM
Hmmm.  'In a Good Way' is mutually exclusive to a McCoy episode.

It was Ok.  I liked it well enough.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on April 11, 2010, 01:49:35 AM
I think Sylvester McCoy gets too much of a bum rap. As I've later watched the Colin Baker and McCoy episodes, they weren't bad candidates for the Doctor. The writing, directing and production had gone to such shit by that point that no one could have saved the show from cancellation. There were some brilliant premises in the last few years of the original but the execution was just horrible. I think my favorite McCoy episode was The Curse of Fenric. It came soooo close to being on par with the best of the earlier years.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tale on April 11, 2010, 04:15:48 AM
I wish he would stop saying things like "I am The Doctor and this is what I do". We fucking know that's what you do and we're well aware you're the regenerated Doctor. Enough affirmations, just get on with it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 11, 2010, 04:57:52 AM
At least he's not going on and on anymore about his people burning.  "There was a bad day" seems to cover it.

You know what bugs me about Moffat stories ?  The way they seem fine until you think about them and then you realise they actually made no fucking sense whatsoever.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on April 11, 2010, 05:09:10 AM
I'm not big on the new "Geronimo" catch-phrase. Hopefully, once they've established it they can cut way back on its use.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 11, 2010, 05:10:59 AM
On a related note, Confidential made it abundantly clear that the Doctor is totally tapping that IRL.

Lucky Bastard.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on April 11, 2010, 12:49:43 PM
You know what bugs me about Moffat stories ?  The way they seem fine until you think about them and then you realise they actually made no fucking sense whatsoever.

Ignoring everything else I think my favourite thing being
I'm still not completely convinced about the new Dr. but I think he's going to grow on me. I just hope the rest of it works slightly better than these first couple once they're happy that the characters have been introduced.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 11, 2010, 12:50:44 PM
The Smilers were never actually explained.

Like, at all.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on April 11, 2010, 12:55:25 PM
They were chilling and scary. Just like the statues in that episode that every one liked so much. Hopefully the new producer doesn't think things like that are going to be necessary in every single new show.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on April 11, 2010, 12:57:23 PM
Neither was
I'm not really holding out much hope that British Daleks will make a lot more sense, on top of the fact that he seems to be taking one of the older episodes and just putting it in WWII.
They were chilling and scary. Just like the statues in that episode that every one liked so much. Hopefully the new producer doesn't think things like that are going to be necessary in every single new show.

The difference being that the weeping angels were weird alien things that don't really need an explanation beyond what they are. Why the fuck did they decide to build smilers and what the fuck were they? The Angels got more and needed less in terms of explanation.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 11, 2010, 01:08:29 PM
Again, don't get me wrong :  Did what was required.  Elena spent most of the episode hiding behind her hands.  That's what Dr Who is all about.

But usually the adults don't come away with that WTF feeling.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on April 11, 2010, 01:19:09 PM
Hah, until you mentioned it I didn't even notice that the smilers made absolutely no sense at all. I can sort of rationalize Liz 10 not remembering she'd been ruling for 200 years but the smilers - especially the half smiler / half human ones were completely explanation free.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on April 11, 2010, 02:09:06 PM
The episodes have been ok enough- I like Amy.  But Matt Smith doesn't seem to manifesting an actual personality, like 9 and 10.  He just kind of sloshes through. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on April 11, 2010, 07:12:02 PM
Honestly while I might be disappointed I get the feeling he's going to grow into the role and I get the impression they're going to be taking him more in the direction of 'grumpy old bastard with a heart of gold' despite the obviously young appearance. They've made it clear the character is still coming to terms with who he is so I'll give him another couple of episodes before I'm going to say if he's doing a decent job. Frankly Ecclestone never really grew on me so I'm hoping to like him more.

I did enjoy both episodes but I'm quite aware that I've been waiting for a Who fix for a while and I don't think that I'd really want to watch either of them again. I'll enjoy this series but I'm still hoping it's going to improve.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on April 11, 2010, 08:23:05 PM
I'm loving Matt Smith as the Doctor. Loving. I thought Tennant had a good scrape at it, but his angry shouty wrathful oh ok let's be friends schtick was becoming more and more jarring, and by the end, while I wasn't grateful to see the back of him, I was really looking forward to a fresh face and approach. 2 episodes into the new series, Matt Smith has really struck a chord - a much more old school, eccentric style Doctor, more Troughton and Baker-ish.

His first line in episode 1 was simply killer - totally left-field, led on to some expertly timed comedic getting-to-know you scenes, and created an indelible emotional link with his new Companion. I watched the first episode twice - not something I've felt compelled to do with Dr Who for a while.
I don't mind the obvious set-up of a series arc mystery - especially as I think there's actually more than one. MYTH, anyone? Plot-wise, it was a little hokey, but far from the worst - the final encounter was gloriously camp, profoundly Dr Who-ish and a loving nod to all who came before Matt Smith.

Second episode was very enjoyable, but mostly for the interaction between the Doctor and Amy. The actual plot of the episode was beyond daft, the mystery ridiculous, the whole set-up was inherantly dreadful, but it established Amy as something way more interesting than most of the Companions we've had before. I loved that last bit. I was just rather disappointed with the lead-up. Still, early days.

Also, Doctor totally looking up Amy's nightie at the start. Totally.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on April 12, 2010, 03:28:51 AM
Episode 2 made no sense whatsoever. You could drive a space whale through the plot holes, the whole premise was stupid. Feeding the kids to the beast even if they know the beast doesn't eat them? And thats just the most bantant one.

I am cautiously optimistic about the new doctor and heart the new companion, but they have to get a grip on storytelling!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 12, 2010, 08:04:30 AM
Finally got to see the new doctor, I cant say I hate him, and there was definitely a good energy to him. The new companion, wow, shes fiery, with what seems to be a bit of a condition caused by the doctor.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Oban on April 12, 2010, 09:02:48 AM

Geez, did you even watch the episode?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on April 12, 2010, 09:10:13 AM
No shit, Sherlock. Did you figure out these obvious things for yourself? How then could you miss that the DIDN'T get rid of the children though, because they were just running around in the lower decks. Clearly visible to the "command staff" not subjected to memory wipes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on April 12, 2010, 09:24:37 AM
Totally logical that they'd replace CCTV with fairground style boxes with three faces  Completely made sense, and the extension of surveillance was the confusing bit not what the fuck they were or why you'd make something like them. I don't mean to be a dick but while it was all atmospheric and works if you don't stop to think about the details that episode really didn't make any sense. Like did pushing forget also


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Oban on April 12, 2010, 09:39:24 AM
No shit, Sherlock. Did you figure out these obvious things for yourself? How then could you miss that the DIDN'T get rid of the children though, because they were just running around in the lower decks. Clearly visible to the "command staff" not subjected to memory wipes.

Nowhereman apparently had issues with these you jack booted nazi, also please learn to communicate in English if you wish to participate on this forum.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 12, 2010, 09:40:33 AM
Gentlemen, no fighting in the war room.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on April 12, 2010, 09:43:44 AM
And you don't answer his question.

They were aware that the space whale didn't eat the children, so they didn't get rid of the lesser members of society in that case, they just moved them somewhere else.

Edit: Oh nice stealth edit. Not being able to communicate in English? I'll laugh at that for weeks. Thanks.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 12, 2010, 10:03:22 AM
YOU SEE WHAT MOFFAT HAS DONE ? ? ?

 :heartbreak:


Gatiss wrote teh Dalek one coming up next though.  Might not be shite.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on April 12, 2010, 10:18:20 AM
Love is over.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on April 12, 2010, 10:48:05 AM
I didn't have a huge problem with it, I enjoyed the episode it just didn't seem to make any sense afterwards. I can understand why they had things like the smilers and what it was meant to be it just made as much sense as having monitoring devices that looked like ice cream vans. It looks sort of creepy but why would any sane person ever think it made sense as a monitoring device?

Of course if they have something insane like a gold dalek taking orders from a red dalek in the next episode I'll really put a rant together about how awful this whole thing is :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 12, 2010, 11:10:18 AM
It really made no sense if you stopped to think about it, but Dr Who is often like that and it's still fun.

I liked the way that Amy figured out the solution to the problem rather than the Doctor.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on April 12, 2010, 03:03:33 PM
I didn't have a huge problem with it, I enjoyed the episode it just didn't seem to make any sense afterwards. I can understand why they had things like the smilers and what it was meant to be it just made as much sense as having monitoring devices that looked like ice cream vans. It looks sort of creepy but why would any sane person ever think it made sense as a monitoring device?
Because Good Queen Lizzie X and her maj's govt were clealr going for the whole nostalgia shtick with the look and feel, so why not have their CCTVs/help points/etc. look like demented end-of-the-pier automata booths?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 17, 2010, 10:03:34 PM
Just saw the BBC America of "The Eleventh Hour".

Pretty durn good, I thought. I get that there's some plot holes and shit, but really they didn't worry me. Most things clicked very well. I could have done without Amy ogling the Doctor's ass, maybe, but otherwise...



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: angry.bob on April 17, 2010, 11:03:59 PM
The show's formula is beyond tiresome when the Doctor doesn't have a strong, unique trait. File this guy in the already forgotten generic Doctor bin. The next incarnation of the doctor needs to be a smoking hot half asian, half indian/arab girl. Instead of wearing dumbass bowties or sweaters that make the doctor look like an even more spastic Tucker Carlson, she could wear a hot teacher outfit. Or even better, a hot schoolgirl outfit. Either way, glasses and spikey punk bunches/angel wings are a must. And instead of fixing stuff with a sonic screwdriver she could just tie something together with her panties - like in Operation Petticoat with the bra.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on April 18, 2010, 01:29:03 AM
The Dalek episode was pretty weak IMO.  The Eccleston episode "Dalek" was awesome, but ever since then the Daleks have been getting increasingly lame.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on April 18, 2010, 02:55:00 AM
Something went wrong there. Amy seems to be the Doctor while the Doctor is just a companion. I'm all for empowered women, the Doctor gets more and more useless through the episodes. Maybe thats a reason he appears so unremarkable, he is neither witty not a quick thinker anymore.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 18, 2010, 03:31:28 AM
Dire.  Fucking Woeful.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on April 18, 2010, 06:02:39 AM
The show's formula is beyond tiresome when the Doctor doesn't have a strong, unique trait. File this guy in the already forgotten generic Doctor bin. The next incarnation of the doctor needs to be a smoking hot half asian, half indian/arab girl. Instead of wearing dumbass bowties or sweaters that make the doctor look like an even more spastic Tucker Carlson, she could wear a hot teacher outfit. Or even better, a hot schoolgirl outfit. Either way, glasses and spikey punk bunches/angel wings are a must. And instead of fixing stuff with a sonic screwdriver she could just tie something together with her panties - like in Operation Petticoat with the bra.

Sadly, the show is Dr Who, not angry.bob's sunday morning wank-fantasy. I actually really like Matt Smith's Doctor, definitely the most eccentric for a while. His style might be geeky and dated, but it's purposeful. Nobody in the UK knows who the flying fuck Tucker Carlson is, btw. He'd be refused entry on the basis of that hideous fucking name, for a start.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on April 18, 2010, 06:09:18 AM
Something went wrong there. Amy seems to be the Doctor while the Doctor is just a companion. I'm all for empowered women, the Doctor gets more and more useless through the episodes. Maybe thats a reason he appears so unremarkable, he is neither witty not a quick thinker anymore.


As for Amy - it's early days (like the third episode, you act as if we're mid-season). They're really trying to establish her as someone who actually belongs at the Doctor's side for once, someone who can see the things he can't - usually on an emotional, human level, someone who can see the little details in the Doctor's big picture. The entirety of time is a bloody big canvas, after all - and he's all the more disoriented by the fact that a: he's newly regenerated and b: he's discovering that the time-line has been royally fucked with.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on April 18, 2010, 06:17:56 AM
Just saw the first episode and I liked it. I'm not going to let myself be biased by the 'early reviews' popping up here. I've learned from 25+ years of watching the show that it doesn't matter who is playing the Doctor, only that the Doctor is still around. I think most here are having much the same reaction to the transition of Tennant to Smith as I did when it went from Baker to Davidson. Baker and Tennant were the apex of the actors portraying the Doctor. We'll have ups and downs with each new guy, but as long as the show goes on, that's all that matters. Well, to me at any rate.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 18, 2010, 06:37:08 AM
Right, I want to dispel this myth RIGHT AWAY.  I thought I already had, but hey ho.

Matt Smith is FINE.  He's doing FINE.  He's OKAY.  I don't mind him as I thought I would.

But these episodes thus far have been DREADFUL.  The I-Mac Daleks were a fucking TRAVESTY of design.

That is all.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on April 18, 2010, 07:22:29 AM
The I-Mac Daleks were a fucking TRAVESTY of design.

Colourful Daleks are hardly new, nor the rightful recipient of such angry angry bile  :why_so_serious:

Seriously, the Daleks have been peacocking about for fucking years.

This movie poster was the direct inspiration for the new look - colourful, and threateningly large.
(http://www.impawards.com/1966/posters/dr_who_and_the_daleks.jpg)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 18, 2010, 08:03:36 AM
I like Matt Smith's doctor. He's more like a young and enthusiastic academic than an action hero, and that's great. I'm hoping the daleks go back to being bad-ass in their new primary colour incarnation. They are meant to be waging war on the entire galaxy and winning, which is why the Doctor fears them so much (although even in the classic series they were usually in some sort of trouble and not at their full strength somehow).



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 18, 2010, 10:19:50 AM
I to am a bit concerned that not 3 episodes in to a new doctor, fucking Daleks.

DIDN'T WE JUST DO AN EPIC, AND I MEAN EPIC SHAKE UP/SHOW DOWN WITH THEM WHERE EVERYTHING CHANGES?

We just had the end all be all showdown top of the Daleks list drag out. The fuck? Need new enemies before bringing the Daleks.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on April 18, 2010, 11:14:25 AM
The Dalek episode was pretty weak IMO.  The Eccleston episode "Dalek" was awesome, but ever since then the Daleks have been getting increasingly lame.

That Dalek episode was astonishgly good, this was like watching the tardis jump an intergalactic space shark.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on April 18, 2010, 11:40:48 AM
Right, I want to dispel this myth RIGHT AWAY.  I thought I already had, but hey ho.

Matt Smith is FINE.  He's doing FINE.  He's OKAY.  I don't mind him as I thought I would.

But these episodes thus far have been DREADFUL.  The I-Mac Daleks were a fucking TRAVESTY of design.

That is all.
The original designer of the Daleks disliked the RTD-era look, incidentally. He felt that the Daleks should always be smooth and hi-tech, not rivets & bolts on hammered bronze.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 18, 2010, 11:52:51 AM
It's not the colour.  It's the DESIGN.

They now have a humped back.  They are ribbed, for you pleasure, the gun/sucker raised outward area is stupid.  They're less sleek and more blocky.

They look STUPID.




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on April 18, 2010, 12:25:55 PM
The show's formula is beyond tiresome when the Doctor doesn't have a strong, unique trait. File this guy in the already forgotten generic Doctor bin. The next incarnation of the doctor needs to be a smoking hot half asian, half indian/arab girl. Instead of wearing dumbass bowties or sweaters that make the doctor look like an even more spastic Tucker Carlson, she could wear a hot teacher outfit. Or even better, a hot schoolgirl outfit. Either way, glasses and spikey punk bunches/angel wings are a must. And instead of fixing stuff with a sonic screwdriver she could just tie something together with her panties - like in Operation Petticoat with the bra.

I'd ask to subscribe to your newsletter, but this is the only one of your beliefs I can get behind. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on April 18, 2010, 02:34:30 PM
I actually dig Matt Smith's Doctor, just from the first episode. Something about him appeals to me. Not sure about the bowtie. Thought he looked better as the raggedy Doctor, but I suppose he can't run around in cut up clothes all season. The companion is every bit as yummy in motion as she is in pictures. Seriously, she can wear that police outfit the whole season, especially the fishnets and it'd be worth watching.

The first episode villain was /meh, but first episode villains usually are.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on April 18, 2010, 03:37:58 PM
It's not the colour.  It's the DESIGN.

They now have a humped back.  They are ribbed, for you pleasure, the gun/sucker raised outward area is stupid.  They're less sleek and more blocky.

They look STUPID.



Really? They look like Alessi salt and pepper shakers. Not looking forward to that episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on April 18, 2010, 04:17:12 PM
Glad I caught the Saturday night run of the episode. They're re-running it now on BBC:A and so far quite a bit of the Doctor meeting little Amy has been cut out. All the important bits are still there, but a lot of the little funny things have been cut. The grappling hook scene, most of the 'Cook me this yuk I hate it' scene. Makes me wonder now how much of the other episodes I've seen on SyFy/BBC:A have been cut all to hell.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 18, 2010, 04:21:32 PM
Why ?

Why would they do that ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 18, 2010, 05:16:31 PM
That particular episode was longer than usual. Maybe BBC:A wanted to show a normal-length version so they cut it down.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tale on April 18, 2010, 05:17:45 PM
It's not the colour.  It's the DESIGN.

They now have a humped back.  They are ribbed, for you pleasure, the gun/sucker raised outward area is stupid.  They're less sleek and more blocky.

They look STUPID.



FAT DALEKS


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on April 18, 2010, 07:59:48 PM


Plus, y'know. Fuckin' toys, man.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tale on April 18, 2010, 10:05:14 PM
Fortunately neither the writer nor the director of this Dalek episode is involved in any further Doctor Who episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 19, 2010, 03:04:40 AM
Matt, that's absolute bollocks.  Really.  You wasted your time and finger energy typing it.

 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tale on April 19, 2010, 04:17:45 AM
I've been scarred by the bizarre volume of bulbous blimps over WWII London (they didn't look like that, nor were they that low or clustered), formation diving Stukas over the city (that's not how London was bombed), Churchill the jovial jowly Doctor-aware pickpocket (he was a serious, conservative politician) and so many other things that were just stomach-churningly bad.

I find many younger people have a fantasy view of WWII and a poor grasp of associated concepts (e.g. Hitler, Hiroshima), and this depiction only reinforced it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on April 19, 2010, 06:11:59 AM
Fortunately neither the writer nor the director of this Dalek episode is involved in any further Doctor Who episode.

You may be right on the director, but the writer was Mark Gatiss, who has not only written 3 episodes since the series was rebooted in 2005 but also 4 Dr Who novels and 2 Dr Who radio plays to date (and is also one of the main writers/actors in The League of Gentlemen). Gatiss isn't going away - hell, he even appeared as Dr. Lazaruss in one episode.

Matt, that's absolute bollocks.  Really.  You wasted your time and finger energy typing it.

You'll have to catch the Confidential, I guess. Sorry, old chap.

Churchill the jovial jowly Doctor-aware pickpocket (he was a serious, conservative politician)

I find many younger people have a fantasy view of WWII

These two sentences. I think you need to look at them carefully. Churchill was an incredibly complicated man. Of all the silly things to complain about in this latest episode, Churchill being portrayed with a sense of humour and a dark wit is not one of them. I really enjoyed the idea that he and the Doctor had a rapport, a mutual respect and friendship. They share a great many character traits.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 19, 2010, 06:19:05 AM

You'll have to catch the Confidential, I guess. Sorry, old chap.


Yeah, what I really want to do is a catchup of the people who wrote, directed and designed this horseshit to take my through what they were thinking and feeling as they kicked me in the crotch.

No wonder your post made no sense and was bordering on stupidly offensive.  You'll be chanelling Moffat.  Heh.

There have been Dalek episodes right at the damn start before any genetic tampering.  They still looked cooler and not at all hunchbacked.  Defend it all you like;  the episode was ultra retarded.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on April 19, 2010, 06:27:21 AM
Yeah, what I really want to do is a catchup of the people who wrote, directed and designed this horseshit to take my through what they were thinking and feeling as they kicked me in the crotch.

No wonder your post made no sense and was bordering on stupidly offensive.  You'll be chanelling Moffat.  Heh.

There have been Dalek episodes right at the damn start before any genetic tampering.  They still looked cooler and not at all hunchbacked.  Defend it all you like;  the episode was ultra retarded.


Oh for god's sake, stop being so aggressive. It's a fucking family show designed to scare 7 year olds into hiding behind the sofa. It's one of the greatest cultural crossovers in television history and you're bitching about 'roid Daleks. You know who else is fat, colourful, extremely right-wing and above all, terrifying? Cartman.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 19, 2010, 07:26:35 AM
No.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on April 19, 2010, 07:34:05 AM
 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on April 19, 2010, 07:43:30 AM
I finally get to sit down tonight and watch all the episodes my DVR decided to record. Which also means I can actually read all your comments instead of skimming through the rabble.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on April 19, 2010, 08:08:30 AM
The new Dalek master race. Guaranteed to slaughter everyone in the universe, just so long as they don't have small door frames.

I was coming here hoping to hear that the writer and or director of episode three was a one off, because really, that episode was all over the place in a really bad way.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on April 19, 2010, 09:06:29 AM
Jesus, you'd think that when some of the best episodes from the previous few seasons have been the smaller scale not ridiculous in-your-face crap they'd take that as some sort of hint about what direction to take the show in but no. Instead we have giant Daleks and spitfires in space with "lasers".  Big exciting event episodes have a place but we haven't even really gotten to know this Doctor yet and after a big introduction and the crazy non-sensical space whales we get brand new Daleks? It feels like he's gotten access to the toy box and rather than planning any cool games the writers are grabbing the biggest coolest looking toys and banging them together going *kerplow*. Which is a shame because Smith seems like a decent Doctor and the new companion is not only sexy but so far a reasonably interesting character.

Maybe the next one will be better though I'm worried it's going to be like someone just repeating the best bits from Blink and the Library. Though even if it's that unoriginal the moments might be good enough to make it work anyway.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 19, 2010, 09:11:06 AM
First part is going to be an Aliens ripoff.

I fucking guarantee it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ard on April 19, 2010, 12:12:27 PM
Okay Ironwood.  I'm coming around to your mindset.  This season is not off to a good start, and not due to the actor.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 19, 2010, 01:32:19 PM
I WANT TO BE WRONG.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ard on April 19, 2010, 01:52:32 PM
I want you to be wrong too, but this is not a promising start.  I'm not going to magically stop watching, but it's definitely gone down a peg, which is a sad state of affairs after the absolute tripe RTD was dishing up at the end of his run.  The first episode had such promise too.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 19, 2010, 03:12:21 PM
Now I'm getting depressed, given that the first one seemed pretty good. But ok, new show runner, a few clunkers and misfires are allowed, eh? It would be worse if the casting or basic direction on how to play the character was off--Jesus Christ and Orson Wells working together couldn't have made Colin Baker anything but bad, for example.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 19, 2010, 03:31:31 PM
Heh.  What would the script for that have looked like ?

Nothing like Trial of a Timelord, methinks.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on April 21, 2010, 01:51:33 PM
DALEKS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzxnHANU6oU

(Also, if you don't think Spitfires in space dogfighting a Dalek flying saucer is not  :awesome_for_real: you should probably stop watching a family scifi show that airs at half six on Saturday evenings)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on April 21, 2010, 02:09:28 PM


I've basically only watched Tennant's run as far as Dr. Who is concerned, so maybe someone can answer some questions for me:

1. In one episode, the Doctor says he can't go back in time in his own timeline, but I've heard of shows where all the previous incarnations of the Doctor show up.
    I'm guessing it means same incarnation can't go back in time and meet himself or somesuch, but that sounds stupid.

2.  If there were a whole race of Time Lords, why is it that the Doctor only runs into more than one of them? (ok I think Patrick Stewart played one as well, but I didn't see that ep).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on April 21, 2010, 02:34:36 PM
1. In one episode, the Doctor says he can't go back in time in his own timeline, but I've heard of shows where all the previous incarnations of the Doctor show up.
    I'm guessing it means same incarnation can't go back in time and meet himself or somesuch, but that sounds stupid.

2.  If there were a whole race of Time Lords, why is it that the Doctor only runs into more than one of them? (ok I think Patrick Stewart played one as well, but I didn't see that ep).

1. The Doctor breaks his own rules. Sometimes it turns out all right, but sometimes there are terrible consequences, usually in the form of big screaming monsters or...cracks in the wall HMMMMM!

2. The Doctor killed all his own people to kill the Daleks. That's why when he plays the "I'm The Doctor" card, other alien races run. Or he killed most of them. Or let them die/made them never exist in the first place. Or just time locked them all. They're pretty nebulous about the details, but he wiped them out of existence at any rate.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 21, 2010, 02:40:42 PM
(http://www.doctorwhoisdire.com/wp-content/gallery/aliens/old_daleks.jpg)


And just because, it came up when I was looking.


And I found a whole image history of them. (http://www.projectdalek.co.uk/files/reflib/Reflib_Index.html)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on April 21, 2010, 02:48:26 PM
1. In one episode, the Doctor says he can't go back in time in his own timeline, but I've heard of shows where all the previous incarnations of the Doctor show up.
    I'm guessing it means same incarnation can't go back in time and meet himself or somesuch, but that sounds stupid.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0562989/

I actually enjoyed this episode more than I thought I would, even with the paradox problems.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 21, 2010, 07:10:34 PM
1. In one episode, the Doctor says he can't go back in time in his own timeline, but I've heard of shows where all the previous incarnations of the Doctor show up.
    I'm guessing it means same incarnation can't go back in time and meet himself or somesuch, but that sounds stupid.

2.  If there were a whole race of Time Lords, why is it that the Doctor only runs into more than one of them? (ok I think Patrick Stewart played one as well, but I didn't see that ep).

1. The Doctor breaks his own rules. Sometimes it turns out all right, but sometimes there are terrible consequences, usually in the form of big screaming monsters or...cracks in the wall HMMMMM!

2. The Doctor killed all his own people to kill the Daleks. That's why when he plays the "I'm The Doctor" card, other alien races run. Or he killed most of them. Or let them die/made them never exist in the first place. Or just time locked them all. They're pretty nebulous about the details, but he wiped them out of existence at any rate.


Or another way of looking at it is that the writers break the rules. The show doesn't always worry about internal logic or continuity. There are fans who try to make it all fit together but it's best just to not worry about it. It's not that surprising when you consider the show began in 1963 (and some of the basic concepts of today's show, like the fact that he is a Time Lord from the planet Gallifrey, had not been invented then).

Having said all that, when the Doctor meets previous incarnations it usually involves them being plucked out of their proper timeline by some great force such as the Time Lords so maybe that explains it in story terms.

On that topic, here's a video I like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4knUJKUNbqI


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 21, 2010, 07:13:06 PM
(http://www.doctorwhoisdire.com/wp-content/gallery/aliens/old_daleks.jpg)


That doesn't count! Grr! That's not the real Doctor!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Who_%28Dalek_films%29


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on April 22, 2010, 12:42:11 AM
On that topic, here's a video I like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4knUJKUNbqI

Heh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7boeBf5pbQ


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on April 22, 2010, 12:55:17 AM
That doesn't count! Grr! That's not the real Doctor!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Who_%28Dalek_films%29

IT'S BEST JUST TO NOT WORRY ABOUT IT.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on April 22, 2010, 10:05:16 PM
First part is going to be an Aliens ripoff.

I fucking guarantee it.


Not that it was a particularly difficult leap of logic, but you may set your face servos to smug now...

Quote from: Steven Moffat
The best way to explain the difference between Blink and these two episodes would be to say that I think the best conceived movie sequel ever was Aliens following Alien. It took the same monster into an entirely different type of film.

That is very roughly the model for this. Blink was a small, low-key one and this is the highly coloured, loud, action-movie one.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/2010/04/doctor-who-the-return-of-the-w.shtml)


 :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 23, 2010, 02:58:10 AM
Yeah.

I'm shocked.

(Was it an older model.)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on April 23, 2010, 05:02:22 AM
Something about putting the Doctor into an Aliens rip off doesn't sit right with me. Maybe it'll be fun but if they're doing big budget stuff episodes like Water of Mars really seems a better inspiration. I think I enjoy light hearted survival horror sci-fi.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 23, 2010, 05:33:36 AM
Ach, it can work both ways.  There have been a hell of a lot of 'Aliens' stories in the past.  I just prefer 'The Thing' type stories.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 24, 2010, 01:11:36 PM
Judgement Deferred.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on April 24, 2010, 01:32:50 PM
Apart from cartoon Graham fucking Norton ruining the end, that was pretty good all the way through. Moffat needs to find some new gimmicks, though.

E: And I've seen more than one person post on other boards elsewhere that there's a bunch of kids terrified that an Angel is going to appear out of their telly and eat their brains. Which is as it should be. Doctor Who isn't really Doctor Who unless it's scaring the crap out of kids.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Viin on April 24, 2010, 06:51:02 PM
Sorry to interrupt, I just came here to say that the new companion is *smokin* hot.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on April 24, 2010, 07:05:09 PM
Well, tonight's episode should certainly dampen the naysayers' ardour. I simply don't have a complaint (and if I did, it'd be the same one from Blink - I find the Angels much more sinister when they're passive faced, but that's the psychological response of an adult). An episode to showcase exactly why Moffat taking over is such a good thing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on April 25, 2010, 12:10:27 AM
I am pleased, nice step up from the cheese of the last two.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ard on April 25, 2010, 02:02:31 AM
Yup, that episode was a big step back up from the last two.  We'll see how they actually end it.  My only complaint is that it really does feel like a rehash of the library episodes, but if this also means remembering that time travel can affect things asynchronously from the Doctor's point of view again, then I'm okay with it, for now.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 25, 2010, 07:29:06 AM
The bit with the video was genuinely creepy. It reminded me of some of the scenes in The Ring and Grudge. I really like the way Amy Pond is figuring stuff out rather than always being saved by the Doctor.

I've always found River Song annoying but that was actually a bonus in this episode because the Doctor seemed to find her annoying too, and it made for some funny moments. He's also asking probing questions and doesn't seem entirely to trust her.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tale on April 25, 2010, 08:12:07 AM
(http://www.doctorwhoisdire.com/wp-content/gallery/aliens/old_daleks.jpg)


That doesn't count! Grr! That's not the real Doctor!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Who_%28Dalek_films%29

I had the misfortune of capturing one of these Doctor Who movies with my "everything Doctor Who" Tivo rule, and it was so bad. The writers (who were most likely experimenting with LSD given the content) re-imagined the Doctor as an eccentric human inventor who travels through time with his young granddaughter, so it should not be considered canon.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 25, 2010, 08:52:10 AM
It reminded me of some of the scenes in The Ring and Grudge.


Really ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 25, 2010, 09:12:59 AM
I guess it's possible Moffat has seen those films.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on April 25, 2010, 11:03:52 AM
The writers (who were most likely experimenting with LSD given the content) re-imagined the Doctor as an eccentric human inventor who travels through time with his young granddaughter, so it should not be considered canon.

According to Wikipedia, the movie fits into the canon as something the Doctor helped bring about to warn people about the Daleks without telling them too much about himself.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 25, 2010, 11:28:10 AM
Doesn't really matter, I am quite sure they didn't make new Daleks for that movie. The second link I posted is a visuial history of all the different versions for different productions.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on April 25, 2010, 11:35:21 AM
Liked this one. The second part could still screw it up, but this one I enjoyed.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tale on April 25, 2010, 04:45:09 PM
I'm still sick of every second line being "I am the Doctor and this is what I do, you don't mess with me!".

If you really were the Doctor, mate, you would be having internal struggles about who you are, not massaging your ego.

And it's STILL pantomime. Another "it's BEHIND you!" episode. I'm not enjoying it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on April 25, 2010, 05:43:39 PM
It wasn't amazing but it was a good Dr. Who episode. Lots of bits that will scare kids and they weren't going silly with making it into Aliens like I was afraid (though I might want to wait till the second part has aired on that). It was definitely pantomime, the Angels seem to have randomly developed new powers and techniques while the Doctor suddenly doesn't seem to know that much about them anymore but fuck it, it's stuff that'll scare kids and was fun in the context of the episode without being totally nonsensical. Tale's got a point that we've gone from Tenant's episode long self-doubt and playing followed by a climactic "I Am The Doctor!" moment to Smith just saying it 4 or 5 times an episode. They seem to be playing up his ego/being silly contrast but the way to do it is not having him keep switching between the two every 5 minutes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on April 25, 2010, 09:09:50 PM
I thought it was dreadful. It feels more like Doctor Who fanfic.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on April 26, 2010, 10:26:50 AM
And it's STILL pantomime. Another "it's BEHIND you!" episode. I'm not enjoying it.
Well, yeah. It's a family programme that airs at just gone six on Saturday evenings. You were expecting on-screen eviscerations and "they're coming outta the fucking walls", perhaps?
I thought it was dreadful. It feels more like Doctor Who fanfic.
In what way?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on April 26, 2010, 10:47:22 AM
The constant "I'm the Doctor" the recycled enemies with new (stupid) powers, the Doctor's 'wife', the companion saves the day, etc. Just felt hackneyed.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on April 26, 2010, 11:30:34 AM
The "I'm the Doctor, booga booga booga" thing is indeed wearing thin.  Otherwise I thought this was a pretty good episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on April 26, 2010, 07:07:18 PM
It was ok.  That's about it.  Maybe it's because I enjoyed the David Tennant series so much.  I'm not finding the story to be inspired so far and the acting is so so.  I kind of think I like the new companion more, too.  Not in a pervy way, though, like you pervy pervs.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on April 26, 2010, 08:52:14 PM
But it's way more pervy if we think of you having pervy thoughts about the new companion!     :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on April 27, 2010, 05:33:22 AM
Just caught episode 2 (Starship UK) and have watched it twice (original air date and again 'cause the lil' one missed it). It felt disjointed and rushed except for the end which I liked. It also felt like a C.Baker/McCoy episode. I'm beginning to see where Ironwood is coming from. I hope these are just growing pains until everybody finds themselves and start cranking out some epic episodes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on April 27, 2010, 08:56:33 AM
My advice would be to skip ep. 3 entirely then. I actually enjoyed 4 more than I thought I would. I went in expecting 45 minutes of "Oh shit, don't blink!"

I get the criticism on the Doctor's ego trips, but I don't find they bother me that much. I also don't mind that they are throwing back to previous episodes, because hey, they were the good epsodes.

I thought the conversation with Bob really made this episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 27, 2010, 12:36:36 PM
"I am the doctor" has been said in just about every episode ever. Especially after he has regenerated.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on April 27, 2010, 01:25:06 PM
Having finally gotten around to watch the first two episodes on my DVR, I can't say I am disappointed. I am not expecting deep storylines or any intrigue, its Dr. Who - it does nicely in keeping the threads in it. Guess I didn't have any expectations or standards with Smith coming in. I recall loathing Tennant for the first three episodes - Smith I am taking to much easier. I figured the first couple episodes would be those set-up episodes for people... to be continued I suppose.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on April 27, 2010, 08:37:01 PM
My advice would be to skip ep. 3 entirely then.

My advice would be to watch it. This thread is full of sore-headed nerds unable to grasp the subtle fact that they aren't the programme's core demographic, or willing to give the new series the credence to get past the teething stage. I personally think it was a clever stroke to get the Daleks in and out early, so they don't hover over the series like a bad smell waiting to happen. Plus, it was actually a really fun episode all round, with some hilarious (and gloriously out of character for Daleks) lines and the sheer unbridled joy and silliness of Spitfires in Space. The second episode has been the weakest so far - it had its charm, but it was a half-formed idea rushed to completion with too many plot holes to realistically fill in.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on April 27, 2010, 09:33:41 PM
Sometime this season the doctor needs to find the scarf in the Tardis.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on April 28, 2010, 06:08:29 AM
My advice would be to skip ep. 3 entirely then.

Oh nooooo no no no no. I never miss a Dalek episode.  :drill:

I think the only things I've really facepalmed so far have been the lines 'WHO DA MAN!' and Queen Liz's 'Basically, I RULE!'. I mean, it's cute and I grinned but things like this just seem so out of context and character that it breaks the immersion for a minute or so. Maybe I'm being too harsh. I've been watching Blake's 7 for the first time in probably almost 30 years and am in a certain serious business sci-fi mode right now.

Oh well, shutting up now.

[/Kryten "Lurk Mode on Sir."]


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 28, 2010, 06:30:59 AM
Don't talk to me about Blake's 7.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on April 28, 2010, 09:15:08 AM
Don't talk to me about Blake's 7.

But what about the time when it stopped being Blake's 7 and all the interesting characters that you cared about disappeared or took a back seat to the shitheels?

As for the "Who da man?" I loved it. because he actually looked around and realized how utterly stupid it sounded.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on April 28, 2010, 01:25:06 PM
Finally got around to watching the Smilers episode. Yeah, there were some "Why would you do that?" moments in the episode, but overall, I liked it. The Smilers really did make no sense, but I kind of wrote them off as a "Quirky British way to inject some creepy menace" into the story. His use of "GERONMINO!" was quite appropriate. I do like this Doctor, though I agree the writers haven't quite found his consistent voice yet.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on April 28, 2010, 01:55:37 PM
Finally got around to watching the Smilers episode. Yeah, there were some "Why would you do that?" moments in the episode, but overall, I liked it. The Smilers really did make no sense, but I kind of wrote them off as a "Quirky British way to inject some creepy menace" into the story. His use of "GERONMINO!" was quite appropriate. I do like this Doctor, though I agree the writers haven't quite found his consistent voice yet.

A buddy of mine observed that so far in the new series we've gone from 'FANTASTIC!' to 'BRILLIANT!' to 'GERONIMOOOOOO....wait...what...?'  :awesome_for_real:

I thought it was funny.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 01, 2010, 01:16:03 PM
Ok, fair enough, but naaah.

Nah.

Work harder.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 01, 2010, 04:25:28 PM
Work harder? Compared to the crap that made up a good third-to-half of Ten's episodes, they are working harder.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on May 01, 2010, 07:47:51 PM
Great episode tonight, and a good two-parter all round.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on May 01, 2010, 09:18:15 PM
My advice would be to skip ep. 3 entirely then. I actually enjoyed 4 more than I thought I would. I went in expecting 45 minutes of "Oh shit, don't blink!"

I get the criticism on the Doctor's ego trips, but I don't find they bother me that much. I also don't mind that they are throwing back to previous episodes, because hey, they were the good epsodes.

I thought the conversation with Bob really made this episode.

Ugh... I watched because I have to, but the 3rd episode was bad, and I can stand a lot of bad writing. Flying spitfires in space with barrel rolls and shit?  :uhrr:

And my god, what the fuck is with the mighty morphen power Daleks?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 02, 2010, 01:51:38 AM
The Dalek episode was pretty weak all around. They may have run out of Dalek ideas a while ago, but feel obligated to actually include Daleks. The Spitfires in space I didn't mind, but on the whole, the story felt weak. They still don't really seem to have a handle on who they want this Doctor to be. The crack in the wall clue to the overarching series story was a bit too obvious this time. I look forward to seeing the return of the Doctor's future wife from the library episode along with the angels next week.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 02, 2010, 02:23:02 AM
Work harder? Compared to the crap that made up a good third-to-half of Ten's episodes, they are working harder.

He just wrote himself right into a corner.


Anyway.  Vampires Up Next.  Cool.  Curse of Fenric all over again.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Abagadro on May 02, 2010, 02:24:14 AM
but feel obligated to actually include Daleks.

I've read a couple places that it was a requirement from the BBC as a condition of funding.

This season is the first of the reboot I've watched. It's weird having things wrapped up in a single episode rather than 5-7.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 02, 2010, 05:12:29 AM
There's supposed to be a clause in the Nation Estate's leasing of the Dalek intellectual property to the BBC that states that if they're not used for a year then the terms of the lease must be renegotiated. Allegedly.

Plus at least that episode broke away from "the last dalek/dalek warship/etc. that survived the Time War" and said "Yep, they've won and they'll be building up a new Empire now"

Work harder? Compared to the crap that made up a good third-to-half of Ten's episodes, they are working harder.

He just wrote himself right into a corner.


Anyway.  Vampires Up Next.  Cool.  Curse of Fenric all over again.
Yeah, it's not like the
And Curse of Fenric was good.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 02, 2010, 05:28:10 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 02, 2010, 07:09:42 AM
It was lazy writing but it wasn't so bad that I've lost hope. I thought it was an enjoyable enough 2 parter that had some good moments, might not be anywhere near the best of Tenant's run but it was better than the last few. It had some scary moments (although the sudden new powers the angels started acquiring got a bit worrying. I was waiting for them to discover that angels can fly and phase through walls if it had gone on a lot longer.)



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 02, 2010, 04:44:21 PM
I was thinking maybe that the pessimists were being overly critical of the Dalek episode.

No, no they weren't. Terrible. The color Daleks would have been fine if the episode had been even marginally coherent. Just bad in every way.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on May 02, 2010, 07:02:57 PM
I was thinking maybe that the pessimists were being overly critical of the Dalek episode.

No, no they weren't. Terrible. The color Daleks would have been fine if the episode had been even marginally coherent. Just bad in every way.

Maybe they are doing some Voltron-esque thing with the Daleks from this episode... ACTIVATE INTERLOCK! -.-


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on May 02, 2010, 11:37:04 PM
I am with Ironwood in part at least. 


that said definately better than Spitfiiiiiiires in Spaaaaaace!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Soln on May 03, 2010, 12:01:10 AM
All I could think of with this new episode was that Simpson's episode where Shatner goes "Again with the Klingons...."


Did we really need the Dalek's resurrected -- what? 5th or 6th time?  Christ sake.


Too bad we can't get some interesting nemeses like Omega/Rassalon. Ole skool.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on May 03, 2010, 12:45:42 AM
Rassilon again? Its been 6 or so episodes since the last time.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 03, 2010, 11:35:01 AM
The thing we kept saying about the new Daleks was that they were the Dalektubbies. "Tinky-Winky! Dipsy! Po!" If they were going to reboot them, I wish they'd said something like "wow, they came out kind of weak, but don't really know it" so that we could get back to "Daleks: very bad but not omigod Time War destroy-everything bad" for their next inevitable appearance. Maybe that's essentially what they'll do. To be honest, I'd be happy to never see them again.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 03, 2010, 11:45:09 AM
I wouldn't like to never see them again but I'd be happy with reappearing no more than once a series and only in cases where there are a small number presenting only local threats wherever the Doctor is rather than facing Dalek Empire after Dalek Empire. Let them be nasty bad guys but they don't have to be threatening universal domination every time they show up, that gets tired really fast.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Soln on May 03, 2010, 02:03:04 PM
was that Timothy Dalton character last season supposed to be Rassilon, the first Timelord?  :uhrr:

I dunno, I just wish they would troll some of the more interesting old baddies some times other than recycling cybermen and daleks.  Or make new ones equally threatening they can re-use.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 03, 2010, 02:05:10 PM
Shush.

The Silurians are coming back this season and I fully expect my childhood to be raped again.

Though Tennant totally made the Sontarans AWESOME again.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Soln on May 03, 2010, 02:07:30 PM
I  :heart: Sontarans.  Mr.PotatoHead Fascists.  Great stuff.   


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 03, 2010, 02:08:37 PM
Yeah, but there was that fucking horrid 'Two Doctors' with Colin Baker that just ruined them.  It's sometimes hard to get Sontarans right and that two parter with David was just THE BEST.  The whole thing worked well.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 03, 2010, 03:47:29 PM
was that Timothy Dalton character last season supposed to be Rassilon, the first Timelord?  :uhrr:

They called him Rassilon. I don't see why they'd use the name unless they meant the first Time Lord. That's probably one of the least strangest things about the Time War. (Nightmare Child, King of the never beens, whatever...)

I also wasn't hot on this episode. I think they're straying into Voyager Borg territory, where the tail is wagging the dog.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on May 03, 2010, 05:14:29 PM

I also wasn't hot on this episode. I think they're straying into Voyager Borg territory, where the tail is wagging the dog.

And sadly, Matt will suffer. Bad writing aside, I really quite like Smith as the Doctor.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on May 03, 2010, 06:06:08 PM
If you can believe the last episode, the Daleks won't be a problem at all.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on May 03, 2010, 06:17:05 PM
The "successor" Daleks were supposed to be a return to some more "pure" Dalek form or something, right?  I couldn't tell, that episode made no goddamn sense.  But I got the impression that the "new" Daleks were in fact supposed to be an older fork off the evolutionary tree, or something.  They destroyed the Daleks that had woken them up because they were further from the Dalek ideal.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 03, 2010, 06:59:57 PM
I guess they want to go back to the more old school Daleks that had different colours to designate rank and roles, I'm not sure why that seemed like anything more than stupid camp for modern audiences but apparently they're more 'pure' than Davros' remnants. Which seems odd considering Davros created the first Daleks and with them being about racial purity and their original lot being the eventual evolution of the Kaleds you'd imagine the ones Davros made would be pure as any others. I'm guessing that trying to make it make sense beyond, "This sounds like a cool idea," is doomed to failure, much like the Smilers. And somehow unlike the Weeping Angels which were a cool idea that didn't need explaining because they were something new and alien.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on May 03, 2010, 09:31:57 PM
I guess they want to go back to the more old school Daleks that had different colours to designate rank and roles, I'm not sure why that seemed like anything more than stupid camp for modern audiences but apparently they're more 'pure' than Davros' remnants. Which seems odd considering Davros created the first Daleks and with them being about racial purity and their original lot being the eventual evolution of the Kaleds you'd imagine the ones Davros made would be pure as any others. I'm guessing that trying to make it make sense beyond, "This sounds like a cool idea," is doomed to failure, much like the Smilers. And somehow unlike the Weeping Angels which were a cool idea that didn't need explaining because they were something new and alien.

Well, lets not forget the Daleks were imprisoned on Skaro for quite some time (ending scene of Genesis of the Daleks). I'm assuming the 'progenitor' Daleks were some of the original batch that perhaps never got used and the Daleks we all now know and love have been cloned so many times or created through substandard processes (remember they had to dig up Davros because they couldn't muster the intelligence or strategy to win against the Movelianss) that they're sufficiently genetically different as to be viewed as inferior.

As for the multicolored models, Emilia not remembering the Daleks moving the earth, I'm really wondering if things are not quite what they seem. That damn crack in the universe is popping up everywhere and I'm thinking that best case, a whole slice of time has gone missing or worst case, the Doc somehow got sucked into another dimension when the Tardis was falling apart (E-Space maybe?)

Edited for spelling.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 04, 2010, 12:44:10 PM
The Daleks that were rejected for being impure in the recent episode are what remains of the Dalek army created directly from Davros' DNA in the Stolen Earth (I think), so they should be as pure as can be.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on May 04, 2010, 02:32:57 PM
I guess they want to go back to the more old school Daleks that had different colours to designate rank and roles, I'm not sure why that seemed like anything more than stupid camp for modern audiences but apparently they're more 'pure' than Davros' remnants.

Which "season" did the Daleks have color and role/rank in? I am curious in that the GF and I have started collecting the old Dr. Who series and would like a Dalek theme'd night. We already bought the Genesis of the Daleks and I was looking to procure the Destiny of the Daleks next.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 04, 2010, 02:44:38 PM
Hmm... I think I might have exaggerated somewhat in my head. This site (http://www.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/dalek/types/) has some of the stuff I was talking about, some of the Dalek movies had different ranks different colours and they definitely were different colours when the Supreme Dalek was at war with Davros' Daleks (which was definitely McCoy's run, not sure if it started earlier). The idea was certainly there before though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 04, 2010, 04:55:06 PM
The Daleks that were rejected for being impure in the recent episode are what remains of the Dalek army created directly from Davros' DNA in the Stolen Earth (I think), so they should be as pure as can be.
Or they were those human-cell-based daleks from Bad Wolf/Parting of the Ways. There's no way to tell for certain, but the whole 'impure' thing does tend to hint at that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on May 04, 2010, 06:20:50 PM
Yeah, but there was that fucking horrid 'Two Doctors' with Colin Baker that just ruined them.  It's sometimes hard to get Sontarans right and that two parter with David was just THE BEST.  The whole thing worked well.

huh, I really dug that episode, of the multi doctor specials (two, three, and five doctors) I think the two doctors is by far the best.  Each to their own.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 05, 2010, 11:52:48 AM
Yeah, but there was that fucking horrid 'Two Doctors' with Colin Baker that just ruined them.  It's sometimes hard to get Sontarans right and that two parter with David was just THE BEST.  The whole thing worked well.

huh, I really dug that episode, of the multi doctor specials (two, three, and five doctors) I think the two doctors is by far the best.  Each to their own.

No disputing matters of taste, some say, but on this:  :uhrr:

Really a bad one. Quite aside from C. Baker.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on May 09, 2010, 02:03:41 AM
Vampires, plagues, and doctors oh my.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 09, 2010, 03:03:08 AM
I liked it even though, as you say, it's been done countless times before.

I'd much rather have a flatline than a peak and then 8 troughs.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 09, 2010, 08:20:16 AM
Seeing Amy try to jump on the Doctor the night before her wedding in last week's episode made me like her a bit less.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on May 09, 2010, 08:51:44 AM
A nifty little episode, rather Who-by-numbers but I'm generally happy with that so long as it's entertaining. Lots to like, too... especially the pre-titles scene.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 10, 2010, 08:22:27 AM
Like people said, a very standard Who episode but since I felt the first few big episodes were really just trying and failing to be big impressive episodes I liked it. Next weeks looks like it could be a really good one too, seems slightly different from the average without trying to just be 'big'.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 10, 2010, 01:48:32 PM
The first part of the Weeping Angels episode was fantastic. It made up for the shitty Daleks episode, and made me really want to get to the part where the Doctor marries/shacks up with River Song.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 10, 2010, 04:21:03 PM
Don't watch the second part.

 :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on May 10, 2010, 04:41:06 PM
Don't watch the second part.

 :heartbreak:

I hate you.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 10, 2010, 05:08:48 PM
But he's right. The second part probably wasn't any worse than the two before it but after the first one was so solid it was a big let down.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 11, 2010, 01:46:58 PM
I liked it even though, as you say, it's been done countless times before.

I'd much rather have a flatline than a peak and then 8 troughs.
Don't watch the second part.

 :heartbreak:
You preferred generic seen it all before a million times Dr Who by-the-numbers to the Angels two-parter? Really?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 11, 2010, 02:55:20 PM
Have you read any of the thread ?  Like, maybe the last couple of pages where I gave my....review of the Angels ?

A fucking trainwreck.

So, yeah, really.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on May 13, 2010, 07:39:37 AM
I just watched this last night and I can't, for the life of me, remember how it ended.   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Furiously on May 13, 2010, 11:23:10 AM
I watched blink on netflix last night. That was enjoyable.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 13, 2010, 11:23:52 AM
Blink was awesome.

Absolutely fucking awesome.  In almost every way.


Such a shame.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on May 13, 2010, 10:33:23 PM
I'm curious.  When did the Angels go from freezing when people looked at them to freezing when people FAKE looking at them, with their eyes closed?

That was about the time I wandered away and forgot to watch the rest. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 14, 2010, 07:16:39 AM
In that case you should also be wondering when the Angels managed to start looking at each without freezing. I'm pretty sure that not only were there a few clearly seeing other Angels in that scene but just having that number of angels around pretty much guarantees a load of them catch sight of the others and are frozen forever. The second part was horrible.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 14, 2010, 08:21:40 AM
Plot holes I could drive a bus through.

Plot holes so big, I could fill them with King Kong and Godzilla.

Plots holes that I could almmmmost manage to squeeze my penis into.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on May 14, 2010, 09:38:27 AM
It's that small?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on May 14, 2010, 06:50:15 PM
In that case you should also be wondering when the Angels managed to start looking at each without freezing. I'm pretty sure that not only were there a few clearly seeing other Angels in that scene but just having that number of angels around pretty much guarantees a load of them catch sight of the others and are frozen forever. The second part was horrible.

This was my biggest problem with that episode.  The clever trick the Doctor used in Blink just suddenly doesn't work, for no particular reason.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on May 16, 2010, 03:53:32 PM
Wow. Part 2 of the weeping angels was one of the most awesome brilliant things I've seen on TV in a long time, and those who don't like it are clearly the retarded children of Sarah Palin's retarded children's incestuous pairing. No, worse than that. Whatever's worse than that. Every square inch of that episode was distilled goodness.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 16, 2010, 03:57:36 PM
....

Anyway the last episode was pretty good. Not great but I felt it worked well and worked plot-wise


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on May 16, 2010, 04:04:54 PM
Point by point: If the Doctor just caught the Angels looking at each other again, THAT would have been lazy. That would have been copying and pasting something and saying "Oh, that was awesome when we did it that one time, wasn't it? Yeah we'll do it again!"

Angels falling into the crack at the last second. Yeah. That was good because the Doctor didn't have a secret plan all along, and was honestly worried and a little bit scared and frustrated, then at the last second figured something out. He doesn't always have things figured out years in advance. Because that's lazy too. "Oh I know we're caught in a tight spot but unbeknownst to you all, for the past few hours I've been slowly building a device that when I press the button, we win."

And before anyone says it, NO THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE. What happened here was they brilliantly set up the gravity thing early on, then the Doctor got flustered (WHICH IF HE DIDN'T THEN HE WOULD BE A BORING CHARACTER EVERYBODY GETS FRUSTRATED SOMETIMES AND NO HE CAN'T BE ALL COOL AND CALM ALL THE TIME), then caught up when the situation presented itself in the natural course of events. The angels sealed their own fate, but only because the Doctor was smart enough to notice it when it mattered.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 16, 2010, 04:14:34 PM
Wow. Part 2 of the weeping angels was one of the most awesome brilliant things I've seen on TV in a long time, and those who don't like it are clearly the retarded children of Sarah Palin's retarded children's incestuous pairing. No, worse than that. Whatever's worse than that. Every square inch of that episode was distilled goodness.

Fuck me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 16, 2010, 04:15:05 PM
Point by point: If the Doctor just caught the Angels looking at each other again, THAT would have been lazy. That would have been copying and pasting something and saying "Oh, that was awesome when we did it that one time, wasn't it? Yeah we'll do it again!"

Angels falling into the crack at the last second. Yeah. That was good because the Doctor didn't have a secret plan all along, and was honestly worried and a little bit scared and frustrated, then at the last second figured something out. He doesn't always have things figured out years in advance. Because that's lazy too. "Oh I know we're caught in a tight spot but unbeknownst to you all, for the past few hours I've been slowly building a device that when I press the button, we win."

And before anyone says it, NO THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE. What happened here was they brilliantly set up the gravity thing early on, then the Doctor got flustered (WHICH IF HE DIDN'T THEN HE WOULD BE A BORING CHARACTER EVERYBODY GETS FRUSTRATED SOMETIMES AND NO HE CAN'T BE ALL COOL AND CALM ALL THE TIME), then caught up when the situation presented itself in the natural course of events. The angels sealed their own fate, but only because the Doctor was smart enough to notice it when it mattered.

Double Fuck Me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 16, 2010, 04:15:26 PM
I thought the Dream Lord one was actually good.  I enjoyed it.

Silurians up next.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 16, 2010, 04:24:43 PM
I thought the Dream Lord one was actually good.  I enjoyed it.

Me too.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 17, 2010, 11:32:05 AM
No, the second part of the Weeping Angels thing was really not good. It didn't suck all manner of cock, but it certainly didn't pay off the brilliance of the first episode. I think I've figured out what I don't like about the writing this year. It's way too frenetic. It's trying way too hard to set up tension but it never gives the audience a moment to breathe. This version of the Doctor is too scatterebrained, too fast-talking but he doesn't ever really seem to say much worth listening to.

The whole rift deux ex machina being used to save the day bothered me. They really have been smashing us over the head with this rift thing all season, and I have a huge fear that it'll end up being another bad Master story like End of Time.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on May 17, 2010, 11:37:27 AM
The writing is frenetic. And stupidly so.

It's as if they're trying to look back at the Tennant and Eccleston years and say, "See? We can cover all of that stuff with the new Doctor as well!" Slow the fuck down.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 17, 2010, 11:38:03 AM
Amy's Choice was an episode that did actually give us a chance to breathe. Like I said the first few episodes have really been too concerned with being a spectacle and awesome and so forth. Hopefully the writers have settled down some now and no longer feel the need that everything needs to be big and amazing that they seemed to have at first. The last two have been more sanely paced and less, desperate to impress, I guess?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on May 18, 2010, 04:38:35 PM
It was no stunner, but I was able to enjoy Amy's Choice without any groaning, decent stuff, middle of the road, but good enough for me.

next week's preview made me think of Frontios.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 18, 2010, 09:40:55 PM
"I'm the Doctor!"

*Runs over here.*

"Trust me!"

*Runs over there."



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on May 19, 2010, 12:42:19 AM
So, the Doctor dreams of the Valeyard? Liked it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 19, 2010, 04:25:28 AM

next week's preview made me think of Frontios.

Yeah, me too, but Frontios itself was pretty much Silurians all over again.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 22, 2010, 01:43:47 PM
Hmmm.

No. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 22, 2010, 01:56:49 PM
Yeah, that was pretty bad. Reminded me of a RTD episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 23, 2010, 01:06:17 AM
I really don't understand WHY they would humanise the Silurians.

It doesn't make any sense.  This isn't Voyager, Goddammit.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on May 23, 2010, 01:07:43 AM
A solid meh to that one.  But


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 23, 2010, 05:05:53 PM
Vampires in Venice - meh. Don't mind Rory tagging along, but the stories really aren't written very well at all. Shame really, because I like Matt Smith and Karen Gillan, I just think they're being saddled with really mediocre writing.

For instance, why the fuck would the "vampires" chicks attacking the house IN THE DAYTIME back away from the ultraviolet light stick? THEY'RE ALREADY SUBJECT TO STRONGER UV LIGHT BY THE FUCKING SUN! Then later, Rory is pinned by the son, and Amy pulls out, what was that, a COMPACT MIRROR and laser beams the thing to dust with a reflection? This despite the fact we've already determined these aren't mystical vampires but big space fish and so should take what hours, days to dust up from exposure to the sun's rays? Is there no one over there actually thinking about these stories?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on May 23, 2010, 09:50:11 PM
Doctor Who vs. Murlocs.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 24, 2010, 03:37:25 AM
Vampires in Venice - meh. Don't mind Rory tagging along, but the stories really aren't written very well at all. Shame really, because I like Matt Smith and Karen Gillan, I just think they're being saddled with really mediocre writing.

For instance, why the fuck would the "vampires" chicks attacking the house IN THE DAYTIME back away from the ultraviolet light stick? THEY'RE ALREADY SUBJECT TO STRONGER UV LIGHT BY THE FUCKING SUN! Then later, Rory is pinned by the son, and Amy pulls out, what was that, a COMPACT MIRROR and laser beams the thing to dust with a reflection? This despite the fact we've already determined these aren't mystical vampires but big space fish and so should take what hours, days to dust up from exposure to the sun's rays? Is there no one over there actually thinking about these stories?

No.  It's becoming really clear to me that no-one is actually thinking about the writing at all.  Moffat's just letting everything through with a pat on the back.  It's silly.

I really like Matt Smith too.  I didn't think I was going to.  The fact that he's doing so well with such shitty stories is an even better accolade.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on May 24, 2010, 05:03:50 AM
...but there is red-head eye candy on. A story would only distract from that.  :why_so_serious:

And ffs... stop with the tag along boyfriends already. Micky annoyed the shit outta me and this is playing out almost exactly the same. Doctor is amped, companion is excited, companion's other is terrified. bah...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 25, 2010, 06:59:39 AM
Eh, I think they're handling Rory better than Mickey by a fucking hundred miles. He's scared but not stupidly so and I don't think he's going to stay, "Oh God Monsters! Take me home!" comic relief. The Dream Lord episode was a way of ditching the Love Triangle crap and giving Rory a reason to stay. As much as I'm not really looking forward to the Silurian thing I'm at least hoping they'll use it to give Rory some actual development. Having the headstrong 'fearless' companion could be a good dynamic with a more sensible, down to earth boyfriend. Honestly I think the characters have shown more potential for good stuff (especially because I'm digging the actors) than any of the previous new seasons, it's just a real shame that they've gotten a really good dynamic envisioned and can't seem to write it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 25, 2010, 07:06:20 AM
Yes.  Again, it's all about the writing.

Really.

IT'S NOT GOOD.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on May 25, 2010, 07:15:24 AM
Starting this season I thought Moffats writing would rock and I was wary about the New Doctor.

Imagine my suprise tha I now love the new Doctor and realized the writing sucks this season.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on May 26, 2010, 05:26:25 PM
Starting this season I thought Moffats writing would rock and I was wary about the New Doctor.

Imagine my suprise tha I now love the new Doctor and realized the writing sucks this season.

That is pretty much where I am at.  This is the first doctor that is younger than I am, and I thought it would just feel *wrong*.  But, I told myself, Moffat is at the helm  :Love_Letters:, Mr. Blink, Mr. Silence in the Library, Mr. Dalek, the stories will be amazing and I will just have to get used to a soso Doctor.  Imagine my surprise.  I was rematching the Hungry Earth last night and was watching when he interrogated the female Silurian warrior, and for whatever reason that really hit home to me that Matt Smith is a bitchin actor and I hope he has a long and great career ahead of him.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on May 26, 2010, 05:36:27 PM
Didn't see this mentioned yet:

Neil Gaiman Doctor Who Episode

http://io9.com/5545926/neil-gaiman-delivers-his-doctor-who-episode

(http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk112/Fraeg/random%20donkey%20sniffing/dalek_rainbow.jpg)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 27, 2010, 03:28:16 AM
Goodness.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on May 27, 2010, 12:14:31 PM
A Neil Gaiman Dr Who episode?  I'll be in my bunk.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 27, 2010, 01:32:45 PM
See I wanted that to be my reaction but the writing has let me down so much so far that I'm now convinced it'll be the worst parts of all the individual writers that make it through and we'll get a truly bollocks episode that involves knights in armour fighting Daleks with an old woman in the background worried about getting home in time for tea.

Or at least something like that but bad.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on May 27, 2010, 05:57:38 PM
Then stop watching the bloody show and bugger off to the 'Steven Moffat pissed in my Wheaties' clubhouse with Ironwood, then!

So much misguided ire over the writing of a mid-afternoon/early evening weekend family show aimed at scaring 7 year olds into hiding behind the sofa.

The writing so far this season has been fine, certainly better episode-for-episode than any similar length stretch during RTD's preside. It's focussed on character building the relationship between a new Doctor and a new Companion and while I don't believe the overall narative has been as successful as Matt Smith's portrayal, it's still but a few episodes into Moffat's tenure and he's still responsible for every greatest moment in Dr Who since 2005.
There's been some off decisions so far, space whales, big gay Daleks and Silurians with human faces, but people post in this thread like they've personally had the writers come round to their house and slam their dicks in the toilet seat. What.


Incidentally, next weekend (June 5th) is an episode written by Richard Curtis (Blackadder), which I have some hopes for.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on May 28, 2010, 07:47:02 PM
Then stop watching the bloody show and bugger off to the 'Steven Moffat pissed in my Wheaties' clubhouse with Ironwood, then!

So much misguided ire over the writing of a mid-afternoon/early evening weekend family show aimed at scaring 7 year olds into hiding behind the sofa.

The writing so far this season has been fine, certainly better episode-for-episode than any similar length stretch during RTD's preside. It's focussed on character building the relationship between a new Doctor and a new Companion and while I don't believe the overall narative has been as successful as Matt Smith's portrayal, it's still but a few episodes into Moffat's tenure and he's still responsible for every greatest moment in Dr Who since 2005.
There's been some off decisions so far, space whales, big gay Daleks and Silurians with human faces, but people post in this thread like they've personally had the writers come round to their house and slam their dicks in the toilet seat. What.


Incidentally, next weekend (June 5th) is an episode written by Richard Curtis (Blackadder), which I have some hopes for.

he penned one of my favorite comic scenes with the first dictionary.   "I myself am a bit of slow reader as well"  I have high hopes for this.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 29, 2010, 03:29:39 PM
Hmmm... Well.... Now. I didn't hate the writing on this one but I am slightly sad. Touché writers.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on May 30, 2010, 12:46:39 AM
Hmmm... Well.... Now. I didn't hate the writing on this one but I am slightly sad. Touché writers.

damn man...

 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 30, 2010, 05:42:07 AM
I'm betting


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 30, 2010, 05:43:12 AM
Answers on a postcard to the 'No Shit' contest.

The finale is looking mightily predictable.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 30, 2010, 01:38:12 PM
I love the way you could pretty much tell the point in the script where Moffat stepped in and told Chibnall to fuck off with his 3rd-Doctor-as-told-by-RTD pastiche because PLOT was happening.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on May 30, 2010, 02:42:13 PM
I'm betting



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 05, 2010, 09:51:10 PM
I really enjoyed the latest one. A great performance from the actror playing van Gogh, a moving story and Bill Nighy. The monster wasn't very interesting really, and seemed very much like something put into the story simply to make the Doctor go back to see van Gogh (which it obviously was, but it shouldn't feel that way). But it didn't really matter. Overall it was quite something for a children's adventure serial.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on June 05, 2010, 11:32:44 PM
Best episode of the season.  The Van Gogh actor was fantastic. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on June 05, 2010, 11:57:05 PM
homerun

as mentioned the monster felt like an afterthought.. hell I would have been happy with no monster and just more of Vincent.   I would put this episode right up there with the very best of nu who.

And yet again I find myself impressed with Matt Smith, I really hope he sticks around for a few seasons.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on June 06, 2010, 02:00:54 AM
Saw tonight's epsiode, "Amy's Choice." The one with the Dream Lord.

I think part of my problem with the season is I like both the new Doctor and Amy Pond but the stories aren't just badly written. It's as if they are written with the intent to not only be non-Doctor stories (they really are all about Amy as opposed to how the Doctor solves problems), but they seem to actively want to point out how ridiculous the concept of the Doctor is. It's almost as if the writers don't really like the Doctor, or are more interested in deconstructing the Doctor than making a good story about the Doctor.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 06, 2010, 09:00:39 PM
I actually liked "Amy's Choice". I agree the plotting of episodes is not always great, though I think the dialogue has often been sharp and engaging. But this one was interesting, there was some chewy stuff going on in the background, and the geek in me is rolling the episode around in my head with some interest in the Dream Lord (really well played) and his implications.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on June 07, 2010, 12:44:09 AM
Best episode of the season.  The Van Gogh actor was fantastic. 

It's Tony Curran... He was Marcus in the second Underworld movie.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 07, 2010, 09:16:56 AM
I would never consider myself a fan of Van Gogh - pretty much my least favourite painter of my least favourite school of painting, but between Curtis' writing and the phenomenal portrayal of the man himself by Tony Curran; I don't think Dr Who has ever hit me so emotionally hard, at least not since The Girl in the Fireplace. The monster was basically a silly bit of juxtaposition to bring the Doctor and Amy to that point in time, but as throwaway as it was (its death certainly lacking the pathos inspired by Van Gogh's trip to discover the appreciation he never felt in his own lifetime) it was at least fun, in an omg invisible mutant chicken way. I liked the little quips about Impressionism lacking any kind of useful accuracy tempered with the really rather beautiful digital melding of the night sky into a living version of Van Gogh's Starry Night. Also, Fuck Yeah Bill Nighy.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on June 07, 2010, 10:26:32 AM
It was exactly what a "filler" episode should be - completely entertaining. I really enjoyed the portrayal of Van Gogh, almost as much as I disliked Churchil in his episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 07, 2010, 10:35:04 AM
Better filler episode than any of the arc ones.

Bow Ties are Cool.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on June 07, 2010, 11:30:28 AM
Yeah so far I've been enjoying the later episodes more than the early ones and am getting over my initial disappointment. This one was really good and didn't really need any big stuff going on. Importantly it was an episode about time travel not just being attacked by monsters, those episodes work well but unless they do a really good job on the monsters they're not usually my favourites.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on June 08, 2010, 10:51:42 PM
Bow ties ar NOT fucking cool.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on June 09, 2010, 11:26:23 AM
I think all ties are not very cool.  Bow ties are just not cool in a more frou frou way.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 12, 2010, 01:43:59 PM
That was good.

Can't fault that.

Pandorica looks interesting at least.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on June 12, 2010, 03:01:06 PM
Any episode which has James Corden headbutted repeatedly can't be all bad.  :awesome_for_real:

E: Nice preview, too, if a smidge too heavy-handed. Have a slightly less blatant trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi9CBxPj_-U


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 12, 2010, 06:24:05 PM
Waaaay too RTDish in my opinion, but at least there wasn't any gay subtext shoehorned in for no discernable reason. Best remembered for some very witty lines and gloriously erratic behaviour from the Doctor and of course, a nice bit of physical violence visited upon the fat head of James Cordon. As a change of pace from the old routine, it was welcome, but the next episode looks much more like it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on June 12, 2010, 08:24:14 PM
We're only up to the drilling episode in the States, so...do they ever get rid of Roy??? Ugh. I see no need for him to be there and he's actually making Amy Pond look unattractive.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on June 13, 2010, 04:50:38 AM
We're only up to the drilling episode in the States, so...do they ever get rid of Roy??? Ugh. I see no need for him to be there and he's actually making Amy Pond look unattractive.
Hahaha.
Ahahahahahaha.
Ha.

Just keep watching.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on June 13, 2010, 09:22:46 AM

BBCA re aired "Smith and Jones" and I was struck by how similar it was to the new Doctor's first ep. It also made me wonder how the Doctor could be killed by radiation but whatever.

"Did you just 'shush' me?" I thought redheads were supposed to be a timid lot.   :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on June 14, 2010, 09:39:34 AM
We're only up to the drilling episode in the States, so...do they ever get rid of Roy??? Ugh. I see no need for him to be there and he's actually making Amy Pond look unattractive.
Hahaha.
Ahahahahahaha.
Ha.

Just keep watching.

Oh goodie.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on June 14, 2010, 09:55:14 AM
The last episode was good, non-monster, filler. I enjoyed it even if it didn't really go anywhere.

So what are the odds on the Pandoracle containing ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on June 14, 2010, 09:49:02 PM
decent, nothing special but it was a decent one episode middle of the road bit.    It would have worked to have had that episode earlier, replaced a crappy episode, and added a better one for episode 11.

regardless, I can't believe we are nearly at the end.   

One thing I will say about this season, is that Matt Smith has acting chops in spades.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on June 14, 2010, 09:56:48 PM
Yeah, I've come around on Matt Smith.  At this point I can't say one doctor (out of the three new ones) is "better"- they all show very different aspects of his personality.  I still have a soft spot for Eccleston, though- its a shame the other two always overshadow him. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on June 14, 2010, 10:03:52 PM
Yeah, I've come around on Matt Smith.  At this point I can't say one doctor (out of the three new ones) is "better"- they all show very different aspects of his personality.  I still have a soft spot for Eccleston, though- its a shame the other two always overshadow him.  

He didn't want to get pigeonholed and I guess he has had an ok career post Who, but man I wish he had stuck around.

The last episode was good, non-monster, filler. I enjoyed it even if it didn't really go anywhere.

So what are the odds on the Pandoracle containing ?
I bow to your superior Who-Fu, I had to Wiki


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 15, 2010, 08:27:37 AM
Yeah, I've come around on Matt Smith.  At this point I can't say one doctor (out of the three new ones) is "better"- they all show very different aspects of his personality.  I still have a soft spot for Eccleston, though- its a shame the other two always overshadow him.  

He didn't want to get pigeonholed and I guess he has had an ok career post Who, but man I wish he had stuck around.

Funnily enough, this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10312426.stm) is on the BBC frontpage right now...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 15, 2010, 08:51:32 AM
Quote
"I didn't enjoy the environment and the culture that we, the cast and crew, had to work in.

"I thought if I stay in this job, I'm going to have to blind myself to certain things that I thought were wrong."



Um.  Could you be any more vague ?

I'm seriously intrigued as to what the hell he means.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on June 15, 2010, 09:27:48 AM
Maybe the flamboyant gay stuff got to him?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on June 15, 2010, 09:31:38 AM
Only thing I can really get from that is perhaps rather than being worried about being typecast he felt that the show and what they were too doing was too bound by continuity and making more Dr. Who rather than doing what they wanted to do? Or maybe there was a lot of artistic 'guidance' getting sent down from higher up on what should be happening in the show and what they could and couldn't do? I'd imagine the beeb being more hands on with a potentially very valuable again IP.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on June 15, 2010, 09:51:09 AM
I don't think so. If it were something like that why wouldn't he just say so? Instead he used the kind of weasel words you use when you want to say something you know wouldn't go over well.

I'm just guessing of course.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 15, 2010, 10:28:41 AM
I'm thinking he's talking about RTD.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 15, 2010, 10:57:56 AM
This was my thought.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on June 15, 2010, 01:05:08 PM
Thirded.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on June 15, 2010, 04:32:02 PM
Or maybe they had really bad food for lunch.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on June 19, 2010, 03:29:10 PM
That was the best "part one of a series finale" since, oh, Bad Wolf.
Admittedly, that's probably damning with faint praise but still.

E: Seriously though, that's got to be one of the bleakest cliffhangers since Empire Strikes Back. Every time it seemed that things were looking up - It Got Worse.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Engels on June 19, 2010, 03:50:45 PM
Where are people watching this in the states, other than torrents? I thought I had read that this is available?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on June 19, 2010, 03:51:51 PM
Where are people watching this in the states
Tor...
Quote
other than torrents?
:oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on June 19, 2010, 04:56:08 PM
Great episode. 

 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on June 19, 2010, 05:51:48 PM
BBC-America, it's about 2 or 3 weeks behind Britain.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Abagadro on June 19, 2010, 10:46:16 PM
Is is possible to split this into a UK and US thread? It's somewhat hard to read otherwise.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on June 19, 2010, 11:21:38 PM
That's why we have spoiler tags!  :grin:

Ugh, it's about 20 minutes into the Dinopeople Part 2, and I'm flipping through my D&D books, eating a Hostess apple pie with a very noisy wrapper, replaying the Scott Pilgrim trailer in my head...every once in a while Karen Gillan comes on the screen and I marvel at her awesome legs. But UGH I'm just not into it. And I think people are accurate when they say it's not about the Doctor, because most of this episode is people sitting in a freaking basement talking about a damn taser.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Engels on June 19, 2010, 11:53:33 PM
BBC-America, it's about 2 or 3 weeks behind Britain.

Thank you! Now I don't feel too bad about, uhm, you know. Especially when I am making Steve Jobs cry when I convert it to a file I can then watch on my iPad.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on June 20, 2010, 06:38:31 AM
We're only up to the drilling episode in the States, so...do they ever get rid of Roy??? Ugh. I see no need for him to be there and he's actually making Amy Pond look unattractive.
Ugh, it's about 20 minutes into the Dinopeople Part 2...
There you go, your Rory dilemma is solved.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on June 20, 2010, 01:15:51 PM
We're only up to the drilling episode in the States, so...do they ever get rid of Roy??? Ugh. I see no need for him to be there and he's actually making Amy Pond look unattractive.
Ugh, it's about 20 minutes into the Dinopeople Part 2...
There you go, your Rory dilemma is solved.  :awesome_for_real:

Yeah, I just wish I cared enough about the characters to feel whatever it is I was supposed to feel.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on June 21, 2010, 10:39:12 AM
I was actually starting to like Rory. I finished watching the Siluarian episode part 2, and while it was certainly better than the ending of the Weeping Angels two-parter, it's still missing something. Matt Smith is coming into his own as the Doctor, but it's really never been about the Doctor all damn season. We're obviously leading up to the Doctor's fuckup creating everything that we're seeing with the crack, but they really are overdoing the crack thing. It has only marginally been all that interesting.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 21, 2010, 12:25:16 PM
It gets worse.  Moffat manages to outdo RTD in the retarded finale 'Throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks' stakes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on June 21, 2010, 12:40:12 PM
FYI for us Yanks... Blink is showing again tomorrow evening on BBC America. I missed it the first time around and only caught a piece before.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on June 22, 2010, 09:59:03 AM
The finale came across like they were hoping that just throwing everything Who at us at once would make it cool. It wasn't all bad, but it didn't really have the emotional impact some of the previous finales have had.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on June 23, 2010, 05:06:59 AM
Just watched Silurians part deux last night and so far, that story has been my favorite of the new season. It just felt like classic Who. It was somewhat better paced than the earlier episodes. Shame about the Rory though, he was much better than Mickey, or at least much less annoying.

Someone clear something up for me though...how come anything the crack light touches vanishes from existence but the Doctor can just stick his hand in? Was that explained before? I sometimes have trouble with comprehension and miss details as everything seems to go by at a mile a minute in the new Who.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 23, 2010, 05:11:25 AM
Because of shit writing.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on June 23, 2010, 05:26:55 AM
So was that the actual season finale or just part one of it?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 23, 2010, 05:43:38 AM
Part One, I thought.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 23, 2010, 05:46:29 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_(Doctor_Who) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_(Doctor_Who))
SOMETHING HUGELY RETARDED.

Minor info on the last episode, which even someone with lemons in their head will have figured out.  Fuck, I could tell you exactly how it's gonna go.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on June 23, 2010, 05:58:29 AM
If this means what I suspect it does this is unintentionally funny.

The season where the doctor basically gets sidelined by his companion(s) all the time is the season everybody decides he is a danger to the universe.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 26, 2010, 10:02:45 AM
Because of shit writing.

...or maybe it's because HE'S A FUCKING TIME LORD.

 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 26, 2010, 01:11:59 PM
I've just seen the final episode of the season.

My prediction is that in three years time Richard Curtis takes over executive production of Doctor Who and we all eagerly look forward to the guy who wrote the decent stories in the Moffat era finally having a chance to impose some sort of quality control on the scripts, only to be bitterly disappointed.

I did enjoy some of the emotional stuff in this episode but
i) the story made no sense at all
ii)
iii) River Song is still annoying.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on June 26, 2010, 01:26:40 PM
The story made perfect sense. There were just a few temporal causality loops all running at once, that's all.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 26, 2010, 04:41:13 PM
Haters still gonna hate, but that's because they want Doctor Who to be something it isn't. Sucks to be them.

Fantastic finale, probably the best since the reboot. Lots of lovely wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff to get stuck into. Christmas feels like a very long time away.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on June 26, 2010, 05:23:46 PM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 26, 2010, 06:31:54 PM



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 26, 2010, 06:34:43 PM
Haters still gonna hate, but that's because they want Doctor Who to be something it isn't. Sucks to be them.

Fantastic finale, probably the best since the reboot. Lots of lovely wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff to get stuck into. Christmas feels like a very long time away.

I actually liked most of the series. I just think that this episode didn't make sense.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ard on June 26, 2010, 11:14:12 PM
The only part about this episode I didn't like was that it violated all the stuff that came up during the father's day episode in season one where people aren't supposed to interact with their own past.  However, I did much prefer the whole Bill and Ted approach to this one.  At least they remembered that asynchronous time travel was possible again.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on June 27, 2010, 12:42:25 AM
Watched the Van Gogh episode. Best episode of the season, hands down. No time crack shit, which is starting to be a good sign. But for some reason, BBC America isn't showing it next week, so I'm without Doctoring for that long.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 27, 2010, 01:00:50 AM
Woeful.  An entire season of ego wank.  This guy makes RTD look humble.

Dr Who isn't about Fairy tales.  Moffat thinks it is.  This is why I don't like his season.

Utter rubbish.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on June 27, 2010, 05:03:23 AM
Woeful.  An entire season of ego wank.  This guy makes RTD look humble.

Dr Who isn't about Fairy tales.  Moffat thinks it is.  This is why I don't like his season.

Utter rubbish.
You are Lawrence Miles (http://beasthouse-lm2.blogspot.com/) and I claim my UK £5.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 27, 2010, 07:02:42 AM
Woeful.  An entire season of ego wank.  This guy makes RTD look humble.

Dr Who isn't about Fairy tales.  Moffat thinks it is.  This is why I don't like his season.

Utter rubbish.

People like you are responsible for Midichlorians.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 27, 2010, 07:31:38 AM
I'm not interested in arguing with you.

Thanks for the link Simond.  He's clearly BONKERS, but makes a lot of good points that I agree with.

Not sure what that means about me.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 27, 2010, 07:36:41 AM
I've liked a good deal of this season. I think the weakness is in the plotting, often particularly the pacing of the plotting and the conclusion to most episodes. Performances are solid, some of the story concepts are good, and the dialogue is often great. I can't see the nerd rage about its horribleness, but neither is it the greatest season evah or anything.

The Van Gogh episode is the highwater mark, though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on June 27, 2010, 07:39:35 AM
Lawrence Miles is hilariously bitter and insane with jealousy that first RTD then Moffat got to run the show AND HE DIDN'T. (He used to be an author for the Dr Who books but when the BBC retconned his works out of existance he took his ball and started wrting fanfiction with the serial numbers filed off his own novels). He's one step from writing letters to the editor in green ink.

One step beyond that, natch.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 27, 2010, 07:51:06 AM
His paragraph about Venom was right on the money though.

 :awesome_for_real:

PS - Has anyone read Black Company ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 27, 2010, 08:13:28 AM
Laurence Miles is a horrible waste of meat and air. Seriously, the bitterest, most self-delusional failed writer out there.

The series was good. Not 'omg teh greatest EVAR' good, but then, y'know, I'm an adult who grew up watching what I could of Doctor Who as it all but ended early on in my childhood and I therefore had to piece things together from occassional BBC2 saturday morning repeats and videotapes. I can judge this season on something I have done for every episode, unlike all previous post-2005 seasons - I watched all the Confidentials. That says something to me, that I was compelled to find out more.

It's true to say this season has been responsible for probably my least favourite Who episode to date - The Beast Below. It could have been something, but it was very clear that it was only included in the season because time constraints and budget precluded the notion of scrapping it and making an entirely different episode. It just simply doesn't make sense in any fashion. To be fair, it would appear that Queen Liz 10 is meant to be a recurring character (the end of the season finale hints at a reappearance from her in the next season) and I can't fault them for needing her to be part of things, it's just a crippling shame that the episode couldn't live up to what Moffat and the writing team needed her to be.

The season also granted me, however, one of my very favourite episodes - Vincent and the Doctor. It could have been disastrous; Curtis hasn't been on top of his game for a very long time, but he was clearly having a very good day when he wrote that episode, to the point where it even gave me a touch more appreciation for an artist and school of painting I have never loved or had much time for (Impressionism starts and stops with Monet as far as I'm concerned).

The finale, though, was far and beyond better than any since 2005. For once, we actually got to see the good Doctor manipulate time in a clever fashion that appears outwardly logical (though won't bear close scrutiny, as is the case with any time-travel story) and lives up to his title. That so much of the previous episodes informed its unfolding was a beautiful piece of close to the chest writing by Moffat and team, not content with a simple montage of 'Bad Wolf' signs, it actually showed us some new footage and relayed some old that previously didn't make sense, and really cemented the relationship between the Doctor and Amy, as he sees it - much closer to an uncle or grandfather trapped in an young man's body - a slightly febrile version of Hartnell's First Doctor to Susan, perhaps.

Moffat's writing for the long haul. RTD had a conclusion in mind but didn't really know how to reach it in an intelligible manner, he just dotted clues here and there that often had little implication to the episodes themselves up until the big 'reveal'. Moffat has been far more clever this season, and will continue to reap the seeds he's sown well into the next.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 27, 2010, 08:18:58 AM
PS - Has anyone read Black Company ?

I'd never even heard of it till I started checking out the Book thread. And no, I haven't read any yet. Worth it?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 27, 2010, 08:51:31 AM
I also don’t want to get into an argument, partly because I can’t work out how serious people are being.

But to give an example of the way the story didn’t really work:


But in a spirit of conciliation, yes it was clever the way that some events earlier in the season turned out to have a greater significance than was clear at the time, and in a way that did make sense.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 27, 2010, 10:51:42 AM

 I'm an adult who grew up watching what I could of Doctor Who as it all but ended early on in my childhood and I therefore had to piece things together from occassional BBC2 saturday morning repeats and videotapes.


I really have no interest in arguing with you.  Enjoy the rest of this crap.  There will be a lot more servings to come, I'm sure.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 27, 2010, 11:31:25 AM
I'm not interested in arguing. I'm a little bemused at the weekly seething at a saturday afternoon family show, but hey, sometimes we can't help the things we're inexplicably hurt by. What's your point?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on June 27, 2010, 11:42:18 AM
tl;dr
Psycho.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 27, 2010, 11:45:10 AM
wurds r hard  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: ahoythematey on June 27, 2010, 11:58:58 AM
I liked the season, overall, and I really liked the doctor.  My only main beefs were with the
Also, the silurians episodes bother me since series three tells us there were


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on June 27, 2010, 12:07:49 PM
I really like the Doctor, and if I don't think about it I like the finale as well.

But I'm not braindead so its hard to ignore the logical faults in this. I'm no expert, but haven't they said more than once that the Doctor can't mess with his own timeline, that his own timeline is linear? Also "If you think about the Doctor the Doctor will return" is awfully close to "Everybody say Doctor and he will stop being a shriveled up old gnome)".

Which is sad, because the way they arrived at the conclusion was nicely crafted. "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue" gave me goosebumps despite my eyes rolling around in my head. I think that might be Moffats problem. He seems to craft the cool scenes and then tries to somehow press them into the story. And if something has to give it tends to be the continuity of the show.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: adjunct on June 27, 2010, 02:46:27 PM
Lawrence Miles Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Miles) is gold.

Quote from: Wikipedia
He is a bitter, bitter old man.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on June 27, 2010, 02:55:25 PM
His paragraph about Venom was right on the money though.

 :awesome_for_real:

PS - Has anyone read Black Company ?

yes I have read several, what I read was enjoyable, but stephen erickson does it much better.

with that said.  If you can describe a conclusion to a TV series as Flacid... then that was a flacid conclusion. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on June 27, 2010, 03:09:15 PM
I've only been watching Doctor Who since the 2005 reboot so I have no childhood memories being inexplicably violated. Still, this was the worst season I've seen. It was tolerable but I don't actually much like any of the characters including Amy Pond and the new Doctor.

I'm not offended by candy coloured Daleks or Spitfires from outer space either. I just don't like anyone. Luckily, Doctors and Companions come and go. It'll come around again I'm sure.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 27, 2010, 03:57:34 PM
Lawrence Miles Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Miles) is gold.

Quote from: Wikipedia
He is a bitter, bitter old man.

What I like best about that is the edit summary you someone used when they inserted that line. "cleaned up intro para."


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on June 27, 2010, 04:41:05 PM
Just watched.  Apart from the Bill and Ted bits I didn't think it was bad.  Shame the Bill and Ted bits were half the episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on June 27, 2010, 10:14:40 PM
I fall on the side of having enjoyed it. I thought it maintained a strong level of excitment through the whole episode, not so much in being excited about how it would end (duh, everything gets fixed), but it kept me excited and interested in finding out how we would get there.

Sure, the story crumbles under close scrutiny, but it gave me what I wanted which was an intense episode with several "cool" moments. And no retarded spitfires in space (my vote for worst episode of the entire reboot).

So...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on June 28, 2010, 01:00:07 AM
Just saw the Vincent episode. I liked it a lot. Actually got me to shed a few tears when the Doctor showed Vincent just how much of an impression he'd made on the art world. Touching little tale.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 28, 2010, 03:55:51 AM
Tinkerbell will come back to life if you just close your eyes and believe hard enough.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on June 28, 2010, 08:02:23 AM
Tinkerbell died!!!  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 28, 2010, 08:17:22 AM
Lies.  She married Terence, settled down and lived happily ever after.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on June 28, 2010, 08:19:05 AM
This series has been great when they haven't been trying to show amazing the Doctor is and screaming about how awesome and powerful he is, the whole 'show don't tell' rule. It requires some suspension of disbelief that the Doctor isn't regarded with fear/loathing/awe by pretty much every advanced species in the universe considering the crap he does but frankly I prefer that to him just shouting he's the Doctor and everyone needs to get out of the way. Perhaps contradictorily I'm ok with foreshadowing of him being like that but I'm not interested in seeing stories about a character who when confronted with dozens of enemy fleets can click his fingers and see them run. We know the Doctor's awesome but we want to see him do awesome, clever things not tell people he can and then have him rip off Bill and Ted.

That said the episodes have by and large had great moments and I really like the actors and when they have had the Doctor doing his thing and kept it 'low key' like the Van Gogh episode I've really, really liked it. I just want it to be more like the bits I like and less like the writers have a few great scenes in mind and think the rest of the episode doesn't matter as long as there are famous Doctor baddies or giant spaceships everywhere and he points the sonic screw driver at stuff a lot.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on June 28, 2010, 11:00:15 AM
I still think it's all just ok.  The acting is ok, the doctor is ok, the companion is ok.  The writing has not been very compelling.  I do like the fact that they're continuing to develop a more emotional side to the doctor.  They did it with Tennant and I like that they're continuing to do it with this doctor.  I thought the Van Gogh was pretty good, but not wonderful.  Better than most of this season.  I haven't seen wonderful yet.  I actually almost gave up and stopped watching back towards the beginning after the fourth or fifth time the doctor reminded us who he was.  At least he hasn't been doing that lately.  If I hadn't put the series on record, I probably wouldn't care too much if I forgot to watch.  It's better than it was at the start so maybe it'll continue in that direction.  Hopefully.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on June 28, 2010, 11:18:01 AM
(Impressionism starts and stops with Monet as far as I'm concerned).

It's ok to be wrong, you know. The first step is admitting it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on June 28, 2010, 12:02:20 PM
This series has been great when they haven't been trying to show amazing the Doctor is and screaming about how awesome and powerful he is, the whole 'show don't tell' rule. It requires some suspension of disbelief that the Doctor isn't regarded with fear/loathing/awe by pretty much every advanced species in the universe considering the crap he does but frankly I prefer that to him just shouting he's the Doctor and everyone needs to get out of the way.
To be fair, he did this three times in this series and it worked once, was used for a joke the second and an empty bluff on the Doctor's part the third ("That'll buy us half an hour" or whatever it was) that turned out to be irrelevant anyway because the whole thing was a trap so the Giant Enemy Crab Fleet just played along while they waited for the Pandorica to open because they wanted the Doctor to stay down there.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 28, 2010, 01:39:34 PM
(Impressionism starts and stops with Monet as far as I'm concerned).

It's ok to be wrong, you know. The first step is admitting it.

You're probably right. I just have something of an art history and appreciation blind-spot for the majority of impressionism. I'm more moved by cubism (and it was a while before I really began to understand that) but pre-raphaelite and art-deco is where the majority of my love and influences have stemmed from.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on July 05, 2010, 08:03:20 PM
Just saw the Vincent episode. I liked it a lot. Actually got me to shed a few tears when the Doctor showed Vincent just how much of an impression he'd made on the art world. Touching little tale.


That was an amazing episode, easily in my top ten, possibly top 5 of the nu-who episodes.

hmm off the cuff list (I am considereing two parter as one)

1 - Blink
2 - Dalek
3 - Empty Child/Doctor Dances... are you my mommy?
4 - Vincent and the Doctor
5 - Silence in the library/Forest of the dead
6 - Rise of the Cybermen/Age of steel
7 - Midnight
8 - The Girl in the Fireplace
9 - The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit
10 - The water of mars


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on July 05, 2010, 08:21:40 PM
I agree with all of those except nine.  We have similar Dr. Who tastes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on July 18, 2010, 10:15:43 PM
Let's not forget Family of Blood. That's gotta be in the list as well.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on July 19, 2010, 11:33:52 AM
Watched the first episode of the Season 2 finale. Parts of it were good, parts of it made no fucking sense whatsoever.

#1 if you are one ship in a fleet of ships made up of the most dangerous machines in the universe (Daleks, Cybermen, Sontarans, whatever) and you're concern is the Doctor, and the Doctor is standing DIRECTLY BELOW YOUR FLEET, why the fuck don't you just nuke him from orbit? Are you that shit-scared? Also, why bother with the whole elaborate plot only to imprison him? WHY DON'T YOU JUST FUCKING KILL HIM NOW THAT YOU HAVE HIM CAPTURED?

Does not make fucking sense.

Other than that, not bad. Really do like Matt Smith's portryal, and sad to find out he'll be gone after the end of the next series. Can he take Moffat with him?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on July 19, 2010, 11:44:00 AM
Other than that, not bad. Really do like Matt Smith's portryal, and sad to find out he'll be gone after the end of the next series. Can he take Moffat with him?

wow that stinks. Where did you get this info from?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Engels on July 19, 2010, 11:46:03 AM
was on slashdot. to be honest, I don't like Matt Smith. We can do better, much better. Maybe not so much upper class twit next time, plzkthnx.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on July 19, 2010, 11:49:27 AM
(http://www.jumpstation.ca/recroom/comedy/python/images/twit3.gif)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on July 19, 2010, 11:54:29 AM
I actually think Smith is a really good actor. There's a lot he's brought to the character that other actors might struggle over. He's just been saddled with really bad, sloppy scripts and stories that don't make fucking sense. It sometimes makes me long for the Davies days.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on July 19, 2010, 01:42:45 PM
I really like Matt Smith Doctor and the way he portrays the Doctor as a brilliant young (at heart) academic more than an action hero. I hope Slashdot is wrong!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on July 20, 2010, 12:13:56 AM
I'll settle for just getting rid of River Song.  There is something about that smirk on her face that just makes me want to watch Karen Gillan punch her in the throat. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on July 20, 2010, 05:24:21 AM
I actually think Smith is a really good actor. There's a lot he's brought to the character that other actors might struggle over. He's just been saddled with really bad, sloppy scripts and stories that don't make fucking sense. It sometimes makes me long for the Davies days.  :oh_i_see:

It bears repeating.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on July 22, 2010, 02:50:07 PM
No it doesn't. Anyone who is missing RTD are going to get exactly what they deserve want with the US Torchwood series.
Have fun!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on July 22, 2010, 03:58:16 PM
They shitcanned the US Torchwood, I think.

I actually liked RTD right up until the End of Time.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on July 23, 2010, 11:33:48 AM
I too didn't have a problem with Davies for the most part. Sure, some of it was utter shit, but the good stuff more than made up for it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on July 23, 2010, 03:27:25 PM
He became self-indulgent and too fond of the enormous cast of companions and regulars but on the other hand the new guys clean sweep of everyone old and familiar left me indifferent to any of the characters introduced in the last season. Perhaps that will change as he builds up his own stable of characters.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Abagadro on July 25, 2010, 02:52:06 AM
I really enjoyed this season and liked the long game with the entire story. Not sure what everyone is so bent out of shape about.

As for River Song, Alex Kingston makes me tingly in the pants so I hope she is back for more next season.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on July 25, 2010, 03:37:54 PM
Watched the season finale last night. Hmmmm.

On the one hand, I really really dig Matt Smith and Karen Gillian (and even Rory). On the other hand, could we not at least have a writer who doesn't contradict himself within minutes of the opening credits? We've seen all along from the first season that messing about along one's one timeline is BAD, we even see the explosive results of the two screwdrivers touching with sparks and everything. And then not only does Amy Pond touching her young self not cause this, the fucking Doctor touching himself doesn't do it either. Are they even trying?

It got better, though really the Wizard of Oz click your heels three times and wish me back to life thing was a bit saccharine. I have always liked River Song's character though, so I look forward to seeing some actual traction on that next season. I really hope they convince Smith to continue past next season too.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on July 25, 2010, 05:59:02 PM
I think the only way they can explain it would be the whole, "History and the universe are ending, Earth is riding in the singularity/eye of the storm". It screams of lazy writing excuses but I guess if everything else is gone there can't be any of the Doctor's timeline left to really do anything. Plus if he doesn't do it they're utterly fucked anyway.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on July 26, 2010, 03:31:30 AM
 :argh:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on July 26, 2010, 04:35:20 AM
Timey-Wimey, Wibbly-Wobbly :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on July 26, 2010, 11:01:01 AM
:argh:

Yeah, that. It was really lazy writing. Maybe they'll get better next season.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on July 28, 2010, 02:16:16 PM
WTF this is Girl in the Fireplace-Blink-Forest of the Dead guy! We shouldn't be saying "Hopefully he'll get better!" He was supposed to be awesome, like those other times when he WAS awesome! GYAH!

Fume.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on July 29, 2010, 10:40:46 AM
Seriously? You guys think this was *bad*? What's your gold standard set to? I thought the season ender was quite good. Sure, yes, problems in the plotting, and the nerdery in me wanted the Doctor to at least say, "Well, normally I can't do this, but with the universe compacted down to so little and River Song's contraband garbage time travel thingie, I'll take the risk of crossing the streams", but ok, it's cool. Fuck, you want a time travel show that *doesn't* play games with paradox? You're barking up the wrong genre tree, then. Time machines are the gun on the mantlepiece of the whole genre, and there isn't a time travel story that I can think of that doesn't pull some narrative rabbits out of its hat at some point.

There was certainly some total ass storytelling during this season, with the Dalek episode taking its place alongside the series' worst, but there were at least six episodes that I thoroughly enjoyed. And I'm actively interested in the two ongoing stories that Moffat's now got juggling in the air:

1. Who blew up the Tardis? Who are the Silence?
2. Who is River Song? How did she know to give the diary to Amy if Amy was the only one who could remember the Doctor back into existence?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on July 29, 2010, 01:19:25 PM
Seriously? You guys think this was *bad*? What's your gold standard set to? I thought the season ender was quite good. Sure, yes, problems in the plotting, and the nerdery in me wanted the Doctor to at least say, "Well, normally I can't do this, but with the universe compacted down to so little and River Song's contraband garbage time travel thingie, I'll take the risk of crossing the streams", but ok, it's cool. Fuck, you want a time travel show that *doesn't* play games with paradox? You're barking up the wrong genre tree, then. Time machines are the gun on the mantlepiece of the whole genre, and there isn't a time travel story that I can think of that doesn't pull some narrative rabbits out of its hat at some point.

There was certainly some total ass storytelling during this season, with the Dalek episode taking its place alongside the series' worst, but there were at least six episodes that I thoroughly enjoyed. And I'm actively interested in the two ongoing stories that Moffat's now got juggling in the air:

1. Who blew up the Tardis? Who are the Silence?
2. Who is River Song? How did she know to give the diary to Amy if Amy was the only one who could remember the Doctor back into existence?


I also want to know who River Song is. Moffat has set up an interesting mystery there.

I'm guessing she won't be the Doctor's future wife because that was hinted at so heavily two seasons ago that it would be an anti-climax now.

I guess she could be the Doctor's daughter we saw in an earlier season, as it's easy to imagine her being "half a time lord" and a family member in some way. But after all the flirting she's done, that would be icky.

She hinted that she'd killed the Doctor. She could be a future incarnation of the Doctor himself, "killing" him by replacing him. The teasing relationship she has with him is a bit like the way different incarnations have interacted in the past (except with more flirting).The BBC have dropped hints in the distant past that the Doctor could be reincarnated as a woman which seem to have been invented by the PR department simply to drum up some publicity, but perhaps they gave the current writers ideas.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on July 29, 2010, 01:30:05 PM
I doubt she's the Doctor from the future because apart from all the "no interacting with past incarnations" stuff it violates we also saw her die in The Library, which would be a really weird thing to throw into Who. I'm guessing she is his future wife, for me the mystery is really what it is about her that makes her able to get so close to the Doctor. Part Time-Lord? Part something else? Just really fucking smart and reckless?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on July 29, 2010, 01:43:19 PM
Seriously? You guys think this was *bad*? What's your gold standard set to?

For starters, the Bad Wolf season and 2nd season ender with Rose trapped in the alternate dimension. Those were fucking fantastic. Both were built up slowly over the entire season but with a lot more subtlety than big honking crack in timey-wimey appears to remind everyone there is a meta plot. They also didn't make me stop right in the middle of the show and go "Didn't he just say that couldn't happen like 5 seconds ago?" I'd have bought the time-stream crossing fuckup if they'd actually bothered to say "it's because of the unique nature of the world at this second" but they didn't. Meaning my brain stopped and said "Wait, he just said you couldn't do that and he demonstrated what would happen if you did!'

It was certainly better than other episodes of the season like the Dalek one you mention, but it didn't compare to Bad Wolf.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on July 29, 2010, 01:46:28 PM

I also want to know who River Song is. Moffat has set up an interesting mystery there.

I'm guessing she won't be the Doctor's future wife because that was hinted at so heavily two seasons ago that it would be an anti-climax now.

I guess she could be the Doctor's daughter we saw in an earlier season, as it's easy to imagine her being "half a time lord" and a family member in some way. But after all the flirting she's done, that would be icky.

She hinted that she'd killed the Doctor. She could be a future incarnation of the Doctor himself, "killing" him by replacing him. The teasing relationship she has with him is a bit like the way different incarnations have interacted in the past (except with more flirting).The BBC have dropped hints in the distant past that the Doctor could be reincarnated as a woman which seem to have been invented by the PR department simply to drum up some publicity, but perhaps they gave the current writers ideas.

Actually with all the talk about Matt Smith on his way out, who could they spot up as the next doctor? My girlfriend seems to think the writers might go for a darker skinned doctor. A female doctor is also an interesting choice.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on July 29, 2010, 02:18:49 PM
Is Smith already supposedly on the way out? They're going to run into the Doctor's allegedly last incarnation pretty fast this way.

I'm thinking it would be interesting if River Song were the Rani--another renegade Time Lord. It would be a nice reboot of her personality--less the dour bitch experimenter and more a devil-may-care plunderer and adventurer, somewhat indifferent to the consequences of her actions. But I'm ok with just about anything besides her being his daughter (the aforementioned squickiness of the flirting). Don't think the "future incarnation" works out at all well either.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on July 29, 2010, 04:54:30 PM
Seriously? You guys think this was *bad*? What's your gold standard set to?

For starters, the Bad Wolf season and 2nd season ender with Rose trapped in the alternate dimension. Those were fucking fantastic. Both were built up slowly over the entire season but with a lot more subtlety than big honking crack in timey-wimey appears to remind everyone there is a meta plot. They also didn't make me stop right in the middle of the show and go "Didn't he just say that couldn't happen like 5 seconds ago?" I'd have bought the time-stream crossing fuckup if they'd actually bothered to say "it's because of the unique nature of the world at this second" but they didn't. Meaning my brain stopped and said "Wait, he just said you couldn't do that and he demonstrated what would happen if you did!'

It was certainly better than other episodes of the season like the Dalek one you mention, but it didn't compare to Bad Wolf.

See, I think if this season ender marks off something near the "bad" end of the scale and the entire Bad Wolf season and Doomsday marks off near the "good", you've got your bad and good ends pretty close together, with acres of unused real estate way out beyond on either side. The Eccleston season in particular has some very weak episodes in it, and as far as timey-wimey goes, the "oh, that Time War thing, we escaped it" plus "I am the heart of the Tardis" is pretty much just as much deus ex machina plus very much a violation of something the Doctor said couldn't happen.

One thing I really appreciated about this ender, in fact, was that it wasn't stuffed to the gills with RTD's insanely baroque plotting--there was a lot happening but it wasn't like a five-year old had just found the fireworks shed and decided to fire it all off at once.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on July 29, 2010, 05:24:38 PM
One thing I really appreciated about this ender, in fact, was that it wasn't stuffed to the gills with RTD's insanely baroque plotting--there was a lot happening but it wasn't like a five-year old had just found the fireworks shed and decided to fire it all off at once.

That was actually my problem with "The Pandorica Opens" episode. Too much ZOMG stuff, which was too much like RTD's last season finale episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on August 01, 2010, 09:15:13 PM
Ok, so I'm on Hulu tonight and notice they have a Doctor Who clips section, which then ultimately leads me to this:

The Doctor Who Adventure games.
http://www.direct2drive.com/9642/product/Buy-Doctor-Who:-The-Adventure-Games---Episode-1-and-2-Download (http://www.direct2drive.com/9642/product/Buy-Doctor-Who:-The-Adventure-Games---Episode-1-and-2-Download)

At $5 it's almost a no brainer but has anyone played them yet?




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on August 02, 2010, 05:52:24 AM
Torchwood US is back on, it seems:

Quote
When Russell T Davies relocated to sunny Los Angeles after handing on the Doctor Who  torch to Steven Moffat, we kinda expected his next project to be something outside our genre – perhaps something in the vein of Queer As Folk? Wrong! Turns out he’s been beavering away on yet another new permutation of Torchwood. When the series returns to our screens in 2011 for a new adventure (one long story, consisting of 10 episodes), it will have a very American flavour. Most of it will be shot and set in the States (or other foreign countries), and round about now, a writers’ room of American TV scribes are starting work. It’s all happening thanks to a co-production deal struck between US network Starz, BBC Wales and BBC Worldwide (the BBC’s commercial arm).

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2010/07/23/interview-russell-t-davies-talks-torchwood/


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on August 02, 2010, 11:21:20 AM
The fact that it's Starz and not Fox gives me hope it'll be good.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on August 03, 2010, 09:41:57 AM
Is Smith already supposedly on the way out? They're going to run into the Doctor's allegedly last incarnation pretty fast this way.

I'm thinking it would be interesting if River Song were the Rani--another renegade Time Lord. It would be a nice reboot of her personality--less the dour bitch experimenter and more a devil-may-care plunderer and adventurer, somewhat indifferent to the consequences of her actions. But I'm ok with just about anything besides her being his daughter (the aforementioned squickiness of the flirting). Don't think the "future incarnation" works out at all well either.

I always figured River was the Master (probably cuz I'm a newb) but I'd prefer it if she was the Rani


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on August 05, 2010, 04:53:50 PM
I could just about buy the Rani as another hidden Time Lord but it would be a bit of a let down simply because that's a twist that's been done. Her being the Master (or really any established Who character) would be a let down, not only because it makes no sense for any of them (bar the Rani) but also because we've seen her death. Frankly I'd be almost happier with the slow fleshing out of a new character through temporally varies insights into her, I'd like her to be a smart and resourceful human that attracted the attention of the Doctor and see glimpses of her while younger (having probably first met the Doctor when he was much older). To me that would be a far more interesting character than simply a cheap reveal of a nostalgic name for the fans or something that references but also inevitably ends up confusing the existing canon.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on December 27, 2010, 11:35:03 AM
Well, what's the verdict on this years' Christmas special? I liked it.  There was little if any puppy killing.  So I'm going to guess that the old school Who fans absolutely hated it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on December 27, 2010, 11:39:20 AM
I need to rewatch it sober.    I am still at a loss what the flying shark was all about.

That said, Matt Smith definately has the acting chops, and hopefully this upcoming season will have more stuff like Vincent and the Doctor.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on December 27, 2010, 11:48:05 AM
Liked it as well. Matt Smith is a superb Doctor and it showed in this Christmas special. It was a bit feelgoody, but what do you expect at this time of year. Nice twist on the Ebenezer Scrooge Template.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 27, 2010, 11:49:51 AM
Usual really :  Moffat being a cunt and mixing Christmas Carol with The Little Matchstick Girl and thinking he's clever.  Good Cast, singing was a bit much, but you'd fuck the singer hard.  Storyline mince when you think about it, but it was a lot better than that Christmas special with the fucking Victorian Cyberman destroying London.

As ever, decide for yourself.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Oban on December 27, 2010, 12:17:40 PM
(http://imgur.com/Qgu37.jpg)



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on December 27, 2010, 12:20:24 PM
And more of the 'same person, different timestream points' touching with no effect. Seemed lazy, even for a xmas special.

But a good cast. Just shit writing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 27, 2010, 12:34:12 PM
Indeed.  Welcome to the Moffat Era.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 27, 2010, 12:50:17 PM
(http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00599/SNN2913AA-280_599355a.jpg)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on December 27, 2010, 01:16:32 PM
Yeah, I had stopped watching midway through the last season, as it just wasn't good. Caught up to watch the xmas special, and now I feel it was a waste of my time. The redhead is cute, Smith seems to do a passable job, but my god the writing is shit.

<edit> It seems like he's writing a show that has only a marginal connection to Doctor Who. One of the strong points of the show has been some of the internal consistency of time travel, ie no crossing streams, don't change the past from your perspective, changing the time stream is bad, etc. Fuck, if you want to do a generic time travel show, do one, but don't call it Doctor Who.

He even ruined the stupid but nifty idea of Blink with his 2nd version of it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 27, 2010, 01:58:42 PM
He doesn't care and has made that clear in countless interviews.  He thinks 'fans' (his Quotes) should fuck off and get a life.  Further, he's been clear that he considers Dr Who to be a 'Fairy Tale Mythos' and therefore you can pretty much carve it up any way you like, episode to episode.

He's an utter cockmonger.

I'm honestly waiting with bated breath for the Gaiman episode.  I think that will be the utter capstone of suck - Not because of Gaiman (a terrific writer) but because of the direction of Moffat.

Here's my most damning comment of Moffat :  He makes me wish for even the Worst Russel T Davis episodes to please come back.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on December 27, 2010, 02:02:18 PM
The follow up to Blink was cool in the very general concept (Alien -> Aliens) but just fucking awful in terms of everything that happened.

This special was entertaining enough and I still like the characters and actors. I'm doing my best to utterly disengage my brain when I watch Who though, which is a disappointing necessity.

Fakeedit: I expect the Gaiman episode to be a thoroughly enjoyable 'alternate' Dr. Who episode. I don't think it's going to be good Who but with the actors and writing I expect it to be a really good bit of television.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on December 27, 2010, 03:21:21 PM
Oh well, luckily it's a British show which means nobody holds onto it forever.  Unlike the Star Trek franchise which is still held in Rick Berman's death like grasp even after he wrecked it with Star Trek : Enterprise.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on December 27, 2010, 04:52:25 PM
Know who else decided to take Doctor Who in a slightly darker, more fantasy-horror direction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hinchcliffe

So as the complaints are basically "Oh no, it's becoming more like when it was at its strongest", I shall bear that with great equanimity.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on December 28, 2010, 12:33:46 AM
It was good to see the episode actually be about the Doctor, or at least through his POV. Also good to see Dumbledore in the series. I actually liked the story, though predictable, and I agree with the sentiments that it was merely a time travel story, and not a Doctor Who story.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on December 28, 2010, 01:32:16 AM
Like almost every single episode of the Moffatts the Christmas Special started off well and rapidly went downhill I thought.

They have great set designs, good production values, potentially interesting (if relentlessly stereotyped) characters, some decent acting.... and then nowhere to go with the story because it all has to be so fucking mainstream and PC and wishy-washy. Bland with a side-dish of bland sauce. Ooh let's have some more plucky little future Brits and/or a clichéd evil corporate boss/army chief/politician story.

Hot assistants are all very well but this franchise needs less toy marketing and more writers with imagination and balls (metaphorically).



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on December 28, 2010, 04:40:08 AM
I'd imagine it's quite tricky to do a take on "A Christmas Carol" without 'plucky lower-class people' and 'corrupt, greedy businessman' though.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 28, 2010, 05:05:48 AM
Know who else decided to take Doctor Who in a slightly darker, more fantasy-horror direction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hinchcliffe

So as the complaints are basically "Oh no, it's becoming more like when it was at its strongest", I shall bear that with great equanimity.  :awesome_for_real:

Who said this ?  Seriously, quote the chap that said that Moffat was doing this and it was a bad thing ?  Moffat hasn't done that.  He isn't fit to lick the sweat from PH shadow.  He's an utter fucking hack.  His horror is about as scary as semolina and has about the same consistancy.  His time travel blows.  His stories SUCK A BIG FAT COCK and his making the daleks for the Ipod generation makes my scrotum shrivel.

You keep on fighting the good fight against the demons in your head that are apparently talking to you and making you read stuff wrong, but really, it's pretty much majority opinion at this stage that the last season was one of the weakest in Who history with the excellent cast fighting a losing battle against shitty writing and production decisions.

Stop picking a fight for the fucking sake of it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on December 28, 2010, 07:17:13 AM

 His stories SUCK A BIG FAT COCK and his making the daleks for the Ipod generation makes my scrotum shrivel.


Oh dear god this is going straight to sig.  :drill:

thank you kind sir.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Oban on December 28, 2010, 08:32:05 AM
(http://imgur.com/pSqnu.png)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on December 29, 2010, 05:36:32 AM
I am still at a loss what the flying shark was all about.

The shark was jumping Dr. Who.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 29, 2010, 06:28:20 AM
Part of me was waiting for it to turn to the camera and start the 'Suck My Dick, I'm a Shark' song.

Hell, hot blonde could have helped with the lyrics.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on December 30, 2010, 10:56:31 AM
Fun but inconsequential episode, very Christmassy. Had to watch it twice as I was cooking Christmas dinner when it was first broadcast and really had no idea what the hell was going on in the spare moments I had to see any. Just about made sense the second time round, though. Sharks notwithstanding. Jenkins was hot, but I could have done with more of the 2 mile tall redhead, as ever.

[EDIT: had that discussion before]


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on December 30, 2010, 12:42:07 PM
This level of hatred totally baffles me...I really rather liked the Xmas special.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on December 31, 2010, 12:28:16 AM
I cannot imagine how anyone could think flying sharks is not awesome.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on December 31, 2010, 12:42:52 PM
I thought that the Christmas special was the best Moffat episode besides the Vincent Van Gogh episode - which is kind of funny because neither episode is really about the Doctor. Yes, it was sappy as hell but, you know, Christmas. It's hard to do the Christmas Carol story without sappiness or cliche. I think it was a bit of a copout that the Doctor could go back through this kid's timeline but not go back and find a cure for the hot singing chick. Moffat really does fail on the whole concept of time travel, and his obvious intention to make Doctor Who into a fairy tale has clearly made for horribly inconsistent and silly stories. But I did like this one well enough. As always, Matt Smith hit it out of the park with his acting. I really, really hope they give him better stories this season, because I really want to see him in good stories before they pick the next Doctor and Moffat fucks off somewhere else.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on January 01, 2011, 07:19:36 AM
As always, Matt Smith hit it out of the park with his acting. I really, really hope they give him better stories this season, because I really want to see him in good stories before they pick the next Doctor and Moffat fucks off somewhere else.

I reckon we'll get a third season with Matt Smith's Doctor. Moffat's writing might be a divisive line, but Smith has won a lot of hearts over, a feat worthy of substantial praise considering the fangasms that his predecessor inspired. He's simply a very. very good Doctor. My personal favourite since Tom Baker.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sky on January 02, 2011, 10:54:04 AM
Just wanted to chime in on the current Doctor. When they revived the series, it just didn't pull me in. Caught the marathon (this past season?) of the current Doctor and was first a bit dismissive (why is crispin glover in the tardis) but the acting and snappy dialogue pulled me in. First one was with the Dream Lord, some good interaction amongst the three principles, then the one about the lizard people where I thought the bit actors were actually pretty good, the (indian?) female geologist iis one of the best throw-away characters I've seen.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on January 02, 2011, 02:11:29 PM
The last season or two of Dr. Who has astounded me in terms of getting really great acting to sell acceptable special effects and crappy storylines. Honestly I'd like to see some more intelligent stories getting peddled, I know the Christmas special can get away with schlock but it's really not that out of character for Moffat's overall approach. I'm beginning to think he's an excellent writer who just has a horribly misguided approach to things and having someone else directing him with a clear and appropriate vision would result in much better stuff.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on January 02, 2011, 02:27:25 PM
Just wanted to chime in on the current Doctor. When they revived the series, it just didn't pull me in. Caught the marathon (this past season?) of the current Doctor and was first a bit dismissive (why is crispin glover in the tardis) but the acting and snappy dialogue pulled me in. First one was with the Dream Lord, some good interaction amongst the three principles, then the one about the lizard people where I thought the bit actors were actually pretty good, the (indian?) female geologist iis one of the best throw-away characters I've seen.

Meera Syal, who is best known as a comedian and turnes out to be an amazing serious actor too, a bit like Robbie Coltrane or Hugh Laurie. It seems bizarre when that happens. Actually the best character in new season four was probably Bernard Cribbins, who was also best known as a comedian or light entertainer before that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on January 02, 2011, 02:58:49 PM
Good comedians make good actors. To be a good comedian you have to learn the importance of Dialogue, timing, the flow of a narritive building up to a punchline. the importance of a look or the way you stand to the delivery of the joke. If you are off by a 10th of a second in your delivery, the Joke dies and you are there looking like an idiot. Comedians call it dying on stage.

People forget that Tom hanks was a comedian. Whoopie Goldberg was a comedian. Will Smith was a comedian and singer. Hell Billy Connely has had some fantastic dramatic film roles.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 02, 2011, 03:10:55 PM
I love the way that All Sweeping Generalisations are Right.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on January 02, 2011, 03:52:01 PM
Typical Scotsman.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 02, 2011, 04:00:17 PM
 :why_so_serious:

Ironically, I was watching a documentary about Father Ted.  Both the chaps that headed that weren't actors, but comics, unlike the rest of the cast.  Ardal was saying that he found acting really, really hard.

Strange.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on January 02, 2011, 05:56:00 PM
Ardal was saying that he found acting really, really hard.

Strange.

To be fair, if you've ever seen O'Hanlan in anything besides Father Ted, that makes a lot more sense.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on January 02, 2011, 08:33:56 PM
He was good in My Hero. He was amusing enough in Dr Who even.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on January 03, 2011, 03:36:05 AM
Good comedians make good actors. To be a good comedian you have to learn the importance of Dialogue, timing, the flow of a narritive building up to a punchline. the importance of a look or the way you stand to the delivery of the joke. If you are off by a 10th of a second in your delivery, the Joke dies and you are there looking like an idiot. Comedians call it dying on stage.

People forget that Tom hanks was a comedian. Whoopie Goldberg was a comedian. Will Smith was a comedian and singer. Hell Billy Connely has had some fantastic dramatic film roles.

Eddie Izzard. Great comedian. Shite actor.

I also think Tom Hanks and Whoopie Goldberg are shite actors.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on January 03, 2011, 08:17:35 AM
I enjoyed the Christmas special. I was really worried about it being another retelling of the same Scrooge story, but the general plot was mixed up enough to keep it entertaining. I get the complaints on the whole timeline inconsistency, they are pretty egregious in some of Moffat's stories, but I've taught myself to ignore it and enjoy the ride. (and intentionally ignore things, like how Moffat currently has things working would completely invalidate "the Girl in the Fireplace")

I'm also really suprised at how much I'm enjoying the two companion dynamic.

I think also, I am able to fixate on more minor details, like how that carraige should have been dangling vertically underneath the damn shark...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on January 03, 2011, 12:00:29 PM
He was good in My Hero.

:ye_gods:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 03, 2011, 03:14:27 PM
I'm also really suprised at how much I'm enjoying the two companion dynamic.

Yeah this for me too. I absolutely did not like Rory at first...


Spoiler'd. :P


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sky on January 03, 2011, 03:17:09 PM
Spoilers for the newb, hah. Actually, he just disappeared in the last ep I watched. I think their interaction (him and Amy) was pretty good "Don't ever call me Chubbo"


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 03, 2011, 04:05:22 PM
Spoilers for the newb, hah. Actually, he just disappeared in the last ep I watched. I think their interaction (him and Amy) was pretty good "Don't ever call me Chubbo"

Heh. Oops. Months-old episodes are now spoilerfied.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sky on January 04, 2011, 08:52:18 AM
I was joking, I'm not hardcore about Dr Who.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 04, 2011, 01:03:02 PM
David Tennant is a lucky man. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/04/dr-who-star-david-prentice-gets-engaged-to-georgia-moffett_n_804230.html)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Furiously on January 04, 2011, 01:43:25 PM
He's marrying his daughter!!!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 04, 2011, 02:06:04 PM
OH MAN! Cute. I remember when rumors were floating around when they were seen together going into Tennant's home, and he squashed the rumors by actually admitting they were dating. I thought that was pretty funny.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on January 04, 2011, 02:45:07 PM
Of course, that makes that Ten-meets-Five sketch look slightly...odd in retrospect.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2011, 03:53:34 AM
Women are crying all over Paisley.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on January 05, 2011, 02:11:30 PM
Dr Who meets himself... er his Father in Law... er Mind melting, paradoxes r hard.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szuP0oBZX4g)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on January 06, 2011, 08:10:49 AM
Ok, that was cool, didn't know they had done those. I always thought I was a bit of a weirdo for liking Davidson's Doctor.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on January 06, 2011, 09:19:19 AM
Not a weirdo. Davison's Doctor was my favorite before Tennant too.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on January 06, 2011, 01:17:49 PM
Yeah, Davidson's Doc was always one of my favorites as well.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on January 08, 2011, 01:08:31 AM
Yeah, Davidson's Doc was always one of my favorites as well.

I wasn't a big fan of Davidson until I had the chance to see all the available episodes pre-Baker. Then watching his schizophrenic regeneration made a lot more sense. He had all his previous incarnation impressions pretty much dead on. Had a lot more respect for him afterwards. But I'm weird. I also really liked Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy. They were brilliant in their own rights as well. The writing and production had just become so shitty at that point that I don't think anyone could've saved the show from cancellation. Colin got the worst of it. At least McCoy's run had some moments of brilliance in the scripts, most notably The Curse of Fenric. (I'm a computer nerd so I might be biased there)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 10, 2011, 03:00:23 PM
Watched the x-mass episode, you guys over think things to much.







Really.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on January 10, 2011, 07:09:24 PM
Some of us.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 11, 2011, 04:43:13 AM
'too'


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on January 11, 2011, 06:17:39 PM
I suspect this may be region-locked, but the BBC is putting clips up on an offical Dr Who channel on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdwZ_fA_-jE


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 12, 2011, 02:58:41 AM
Good clip.  God, he was a jerk back then.

And now.

 :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sky on January 12, 2011, 08:27:15 AM
As a 'merican, Tom Baker was always 'the' Doctor when I was a kid (though I hated Adric with a passion). Having seen more on DVD now, First Doctor is probably my favorite (until Eleventh, that is). I like that he's almost the villain.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 12, 2011, 08:31:19 AM
Be fair, Adric was only in a couple of Bakers run.

And then Davidson killed him.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sky on January 12, 2011, 09:01:30 AM
Ooo, I missed that. I never saw the Baker stuff contiguously, I was a kid back when kids didn't sit home watching tv. Lots of repeats and I'd maybe catch half an episode most of the time.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on January 12, 2011, 12:24:17 PM
Be fair, Adric was only in a couple of Bakers run.

And then Davidson killed him.



Davison didn't kill him, he got all noble and went down with the ship.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 13, 2011, 07:12:26 AM
 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on January 13, 2011, 08:14:35 AM
 :uhrr: or not, I'd blame the cybermen before I blamed the doctor.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on January 13, 2011, 10:05:32 AM
Be fair, Adric was only in a couple of Bakers run.

And then Davidson killed him.



Davison didn't kill him, he got all noble and went down with the ship.

And there was much rejoicing. Easily one of the most annoying, loathsome Who companions ever.

You know which companion people hate that I think could have worked well, though--almost did work--was Turlough. Spiky, brittle, sarcastic character wrestling with whether to betray the Doctor, that's potentially interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing the contemporary Doctor pick up a more damaged, flawed person in whom the Doctor sees some potential. Burnt-out ex-soldier, alcoholic scientist who thinks he's a failure but who has always actually been on the verge of some major discovery, that sort of thing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sky on January 13, 2011, 10:09:51 AM
I agree from a story standpoint. But...

"I'm dressed for Rio!"


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on January 13, 2011, 02:31:18 PM
Be fair, Adric was only in a couple of Bakers run.

And then Davidson killed him.



Davison didn't kill him, he got all noble and went down with the ship.

And there was much rejoicing. Easily one of the most annoying, loathsome Who companions ever.

You know which companion people hate that I think could have worked well, though--almost did work--was Turlough. Spiky, brittle, sarcastic character wrestling with whether to betray the Doctor, that's potentially interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing the contemporary Doctor pick up a more damaged, flawed person in whom the Doctor sees some potential. Burnt-out ex-soldier, alcoholic scientist who thinks he's a failure but who has always actually been on the verge of some major discovery, that sort of thing.

This sounds a lot like Donna to me. She was a good companion.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on January 13, 2011, 03:20:42 PM
Yeah. That complexity definitely made her among the more interesting ever.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Furiously on January 13, 2011, 06:01:35 PM
But her ending was   :drill:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on January 27, 2011, 05:52:31 PM
Aaaaaand here's why they were multi-colored.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tLBDkpM870

Not really why. I just swore I read a post earlier about "What, are they trying to make them collectible toys now?!" But nobody actually said it, so I'm inferring it!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on January 27, 2011, 06:12:18 PM
Aaaaaand here's why they were multi-colored.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tLBDkpM870

Not really why. I just swore I read a post earlier about "What, are they trying to make them collectible toys now?!" But nobody actually said it, so I'm inferring it!

I died a little on the inside.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 27, 2011, 06:38:28 PM
I want one!  :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on January 28, 2011, 04:29:22 PM
I want one!  :grin:

Seriously if I was a kid that would be totally badass. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Oban on January 28, 2011, 05:54:49 PM
I would gladly buy that if it was a hover craft.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on January 28, 2011, 06:44:00 PM
I would gladly buy that if it was a hover craft.

My hovercraft is full of eels.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Soln on January 28, 2011, 06:48:52 PM
that is too cute and  :awesome_for_real:.  Well struck.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on January 29, 2011, 02:04:59 AM
I would gladly buy that if it was a hover craft.

My hovercraft is full of eels.

My nipples explode with delight!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Typhon on January 31, 2011, 11:44:42 AM
I'm all a tingle waiting for Ironwood's comment! 

That said, I did wonder about this - Is it possible to make the Daleks more hateful?  I believe the answer is "yes, just show them this commercial".


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 31, 2011, 12:36:33 PM
Same As It Ever Was. (http://www.skaro.org/)


I used to have most of that website.  I'm gonna comment about some kids enjoying Dr Who Merch ?

Who gives a toss?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on January 31, 2011, 05:43:15 PM
I would gladly buy that if it was a hover craft.

My hovercraft is full of eels.

My nipples explode with delight!

Do you want to go back to my place, bouncy bouncy?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: JWIV on March 28, 2011, 12:37:01 PM
But her ending was   :drill:

I'm just catching up on my Dr. Who and finally saw this ending.   I wasn't a big Donna fan to start with, but she definitely grew on me and her ending was seriously   :drill: to  :ye_gods: 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on March 28, 2011, 12:52:57 PM
Donna was my favourite companion. Her lack of attraction for the Doctor was a welcome change after the previous companions. She deserved a better fate.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on April 10, 2011, 01:42:20 PM
been watching season 4(?), the series with Donna  *sigh* she was awesome.  Amy Pond is a step backwards in my humble opinion.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 10, 2011, 02:30:45 PM
I like the look of the new season from the current trailers. Don't expect it will make a convert of anyone who thinks Moffat is Hitler's stepson.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Johny Cee on April 11, 2011, 07:17:58 PM
Okay, what channel in Canada has the broadcast rights to Dr Who?  I'm not shelling out for BBC America, so I'm really hoping that it's on one of the two English Canadian stations I get.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on April 11, 2011, 11:28:19 PM
Space has it but I think they run a season behind the BBC.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on April 15, 2011, 12:49:19 AM
9(?) ish days until the new season starts.  Please give Matt Smith something to work with.   Vincent and the Doctor was so good, I just hope we see some of that magic.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Johny Cee on April 15, 2011, 11:50:34 AM
Space has it but I think they run a season behind the BBC.

That's too bad.

Hell, I'd even try to watch it on one of the French channels if they were showing the episodes as they came out.  I watched a bit of Lost ("Perdu") on the major French station we get just for laughs.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Der Helm on April 15, 2011, 09:44:11 PM
So, I decided to watch "Children of the Earth" for the first time and since it was way past midnight over here I only noticed at the very end that I had started with "Day 5" and not "Day 1".
I assumed I was watching a very long cold opening. Then the credits rolled.


Still, very, very, VERY good TV and according to Wikipedia I missed a few  of the tearjerker scenes. Having half of the team killed of at the end of season 2 was bad enough, I think.

So, yay me ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on April 16, 2011, 01:53:24 AM
Children of the Earth was amazing. It made up for what was in my opinion a pretty awful series before that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on April 16, 2011, 05:16:30 AM
Miracle Day is lining up to be either awesome or the most godawful Torchwood yet.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on April 17, 2011, 06:08:24 PM
So, I decided to watch "Children of the Earth" for the first time and since it was way past midnight over here I only noticed at the very end that I had started with "Day 5" and not "Day 1".
I assumed I was watching a very long cold opening. Then the credits rolled.


Still, very, very, VERY good TV and according to Wikipedia I missed a few  of the tearjerker scenes. Having half of the team killed of at the end of season 2 was bad enough, I think.

So, yay me ?

uhmm you went back and watched it from episode 1 i home??  Children of Earth was simply tremendous.  As good as the best doctor who.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Furiously on April 19, 2011, 05:23:27 PM
Elisabeth Sladen, who played Sarah Jane Smith died at 63 today.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1378645/Doctor-Who-star-Elisabeth-Sladen-dies-cancer-battle.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1378645/Doctor-Who-star-Elisabeth-Sladen-dies-cancer-battle.html)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 20, 2011, 02:03:52 AM
Just came to post that.

Horrible, horrible news.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on April 20, 2011, 02:16:37 AM
Thats terrribly sad news.

I am really surprised she was 63 already, she certainly looked younger in the last Doctor Who Episodes she starred in. And I was looking forward to the Sara Janes Adventures one of these days.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on April 20, 2011, 08:09:22 AM
Very sad. Include me in the bunch who had no idea she was in her 60s.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 20, 2011, 08:16:51 AM
Really tragic. I gather they have some Sarah Jane Adventures already filmed that haven't been released, the fifth season? I wonder what they'll do next with the series. Hope they figure out a way to deal with it in the show itself--kind of reminds me of when Mr. Hooper died on Sesame Street.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 20, 2011, 09:07:52 AM
Elisabeth Sladen, who played Sarah Jane Smith died at 63 today.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1378645/Doctor-Who-star-Elisabeth-Sladen-dies-cancer-battle.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1378645/Doctor-Who-star-Elisabeth-Sladen-dies-cancer-battle.html)

 :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Jade Falcon on April 21, 2011, 08:41:12 PM
Okay, what channel in Canada has the broadcast rights to Dr Who?  I'm not shelling out for BBC America, so I'm really hoping that it's on one of the two English Canadian stations I get.

Season 6 premieres Sat at 8 est on Space channel just saw the commercial.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Johny Cee on April 21, 2011, 10:51:21 PM
Okay, what channel in Canada has the broadcast rights to Dr Who?  I'm not shelling out for BBC America, so I'm really hoping that it's on one of the two English Canadian stations I get.

Season 6 premieres Sat at 8 est on Space channel just saw the commercial.

Yah, don't get that.  I have a CBC and CFCF 12 (CTV), and some French language channel. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on April 22, 2011, 12:10:11 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that people who didn't like last season, also won't like this season. Will people watch it anyway?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 22, 2011, 01:00:06 PM
Yes.  Alas.

From what I can see, it's all Alex Kingston, All The Time.

Fuck off.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on April 22, 2011, 01:25:29 PM
HELLO SWEETIE.

*smug smug smirk smirk*

*WINK*

SPOILERS!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 22, 2011, 06:53:51 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that people who didn't like last season, also won't like this season. Will people watch it anyway?


And post our views about each episode, yes:)

Actually I have enjoyed every season so far and I'm looking forward to this one. It looks like we'll finally get to find out who River Song is, and even though I find the character annoying this has been an interesting mystery. I'm hoping that Amy and Rory together will be fun. We've got the Neil Gaiman episode. And it's another season of Matt Smith, who I think I can enjoy as the Doctor even when the script is terrible.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on April 22, 2011, 09:23:50 PM
I like River Song.  I think they've been plugging away at her for long enough it's about time we get to see most of it explained.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 23, 2011, 02:32:36 AM
Edit :

Fuck it.  Here's a trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vIsQ25Krq8&feature=share).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Arthur_Parker on April 23, 2011, 11:51:04 AM
Is this worth watching?  I haven't really tried Doctor Who since Tom Baker.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 23, 2011, 12:22:04 PM
HELLO SWEETIE.

*smug smug smirk smirk*

*WINK*

SPOILERS!

You were right in the first ten minutes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on April 23, 2011, 01:43:11 PM
Is this worth watching?  I haven't really tried Doctor Who since Tom Baker.

Tennant and Eccleston were worth watching.  I don't know about the latest because I don't get SyFy or BBC anymore and haven't bothered to go looking online.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 23, 2011, 06:09:16 PM
The last season had some serious lows and some great highs. Unless you're in the grip of cheerless nerd rage, in which case it's all worse than the best episode of Misfits of Science, apparently.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 24, 2011, 03:54:19 AM
The great highs being.....


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on April 24, 2011, 09:25:07 AM
...Karen Gillan's legs?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 24, 2011, 10:04:15 AM
No argument.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on April 24, 2011, 12:25:11 PM
First episode of the new season I liked. Yes, there was a bit much mugging, but then I like the River Song character. For that matter, I like all the characters, it's the goddamn stories, specifically the resolutions that I've had a problem with under Moffat's reign. I love Matt Smith AS the Doctor, just not the stories he's been put in. This one reminds me of the Weeping Angels 2-parter - the first episode was a pretty good buildup, the second was absolute shit. This one had a lot of good buildup - I only hope they don't fuck it up with the resolution. I'd like to see Canton continue as a companion along with River, but who knows where it's going to go.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on April 24, 2011, 01:43:23 PM
first few minutes was trying too hard.   The rest of it was pretty good, but it didn't leave me saying "Doctor Who, Fuck Yeah!"


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 24, 2011, 02:11:17 PM
I tend not to review 2 parters without seeing the rest.  Doesn't seem fair.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

EDIT :  oh, and don't watch the confidential unless you wanna get angry at the state of the BBC.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 24, 2011, 03:41:48 PM
Whargarble. The show's trying to top itself over and over again. It's reached Star Trek levels of incestuous storytelling.

Moffat needs to step outside his comfort zone. Or be pushed out of it. Whichever.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 24, 2011, 05:31:47 PM
Oh, dear. I and just about everybody who isn't at epic levels of jadedness seems to have thought it a pretty decent episode. Lots of things to think about, some nice set-ups, some good character work, what's not to like? The possibility that it might not turn out well in the end? That's a pretty good way to keep from enjoying anything in the moment. I keep wondering what the Who gold standard is that keeps you all warm at night. What was it that was actually good?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on April 25, 2011, 02:09:37 PM
I liked a lot of the Eccleston season, and most of the Rose, Martha and Donna episodes of Tennant's run. The end of the Tennant run, specifically Waters of Mars and the End of Time is where it all went pear-shaped for me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 25, 2011, 03:42:24 PM
Waters of Mars was a really, really, really good episode up until the last ten minutes 'I Am God' shite.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on April 25, 2011, 03:54:14 PM
I don't know, Waters always felt overlong to me, like most of the story was him whinging about how he can't change things while not much really happened at all.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 25, 2011, 05:19:25 PM
Fair enough.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on April 25, 2011, 06:08:44 PM
I thought it was a solid, balanced episode. Hated River smugsmirking, but as soon as she refered to Silence in the Library, I liked her again. I love it when the Doctor's companions (Amy and Rory in this case) act like time travellers. Hated them referring to America as the most powerful country in the world. I haaaaate it when Brits look up to the USA anyway. It makes me feel like this is a nation of dirty lying whores. (Oh wait, lololololol.)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 26, 2011, 07:41:06 AM
The understanding that the Beeb is selling this to an American market heavily should explain much to you.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sky on April 26, 2011, 08:33:01 AM
I liked it. The way the new guy was written was nice. Nice little twist with the forgetting the aliens bit, got a chuckle out of me each time though by the time they got to Rory it was maybe one trip to the well too many.

Are full HD episodes available online anywhere (legal)? One of the shows I'm going to miss when cable goes dark this weekend.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 26, 2011, 08:43:04 AM
I liked a lot of the Eccleston season, and most of the Rose, Martha and Donna episodes of Tennant's run. The end of the Tennant run, specifically Waters of Mars and the End of Time is where it all went pear-shaped for me.

See, I think the worst of this last season and the worst of those runs match up pretty well in terms of badness: say, Fear Her and last season's technicolor Daleks episode. I don't think that the Moffat-run stuff has yet generated something as bad as the Slitheen two-parter in Eccleston's season. I think the two-part conclusion of last season has a lot of the good and bad sides of Davies' season enders. But equally I can't see why really quite good episodes from last season like "The Lodger" or "Vincent and the Doctor" don't compare favorably to the best of Eccleston and Tennant's runs. And there were also quite decent if not spectacular episodes last season like "The Vampires of Venice".


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 26, 2011, 10:07:31 AM
We are on season six now, so I am assuming discussion of seasons two and three is no longer considered a spoiler.

Previous seasons had their faults but they generally had a good mixture of standout episodes and a strong overall arc.

For example, Rose and the Doctor's doomed love story in season two was a strong tale.

The return of the Master in season three was nicely foreshadowed before he appeared, and the Master himself, as played by John Simm, was a great character.

The last season was apparently meant to have an arc as well, but it didn't make sense. I thought the story of Amy and Rory's relationship worked well, but the main plotline - cracks in the wall, River Song, Tardis exploding - was just a jumble. Maybe that's partly because the story was designed to last more than one season.

As for the quality of individual episodes, I think everyone pretty much agrees that previous seasons had some standout episodes and some that were just bad, and last year's followed that pattern. People certainly bitched at the lousy episodes in previous seasons, and they raved about Vincent and the Doctor last year.

As for the first episode of season six, I agree with Ironwood that it makes sense to wait for part two, but I thought the monster oh my god it's opening its mouth like in that painting by munch was nice and sinister.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on April 26, 2011, 10:17:08 AM
The Silence (I'll call them Munchmen) is/are potentially scary as shit. That said, the wait-and-see attitude everyone is taking is warranted. The problem with last season was simply that they got overzealous in their arc planning and ran out of money. The Gaiman episode was supposed to be last season, but they went with the Lodger instead because they'd blown their budget.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on April 26, 2011, 10:31:04 AM
But equally I can't see why really quite good episodes from last season like "The Lodger" or "Vincent and the Doctor" don't compare favorably to the best of Eccleston and Tennant's runs. And there were also quite decent if not spectacular episodes last season like "The Vampires of Venice".

I thought the Vampires of Venice episode sucked monkey ass, especially the killing a flying fish vampire thing by drying it out with a fucking mirror. God, that was shit. The reason you don't see The Lodger or Vincent and the Doctor compared with the best of Tennant's run is because NEITHER STORY WAS ABOUT THE DOCTOR. He was almost superfluous to the fucking story. You could have inserted any mysterious stranger who knows things in those stories and they would have worked. Moffat's idea that the Doctor is one long fairy tale is misguided - he appears to dismiss science fiction because the science parts are too hard or something. That's why you see such shit as that over elaborate season finale from last year. Even the fucking resolution was a copout - Amy can remember me back into existence! HURRAY! LET'S HAVE FISH FINGERS AND CUSTARD.

Doctor Who is not a fairy tale.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 26, 2011, 11:03:42 AM
It is until they get rid of that useless hack.

Get used to it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 26, 2011, 01:00:30 PM
But equally I can't see why really quite good episodes from last season like "The Lodger" or "Vincent and the Doctor" don't compare favorably to the best of Eccleston and Tennant's runs. And there were also quite decent if not spectacular episodes last season like "The Vampires of Venice".

I thought the Vampires of Venice episode sucked monkey ass, especially the killing a flying fish vampire thing by drying it out with a fucking mirror. God, that was shit. The reason you don't see The Lodger or Vincent and the Doctor compared with the best of Tennant's run is because NEITHER STORY WAS ABOUT THE DOCTOR. He was almost superfluous to the fucking story. You could have inserted any mysterious stranger who knows things in those stories and they would have worked. Moffat's idea that the Doctor is one long fairy tale is misguided - he appears to dismiss science fiction because the science parts are too hard or something. That's why you see such shit as that over elaborate season finale from last year. Even the fucking resolution was a copout - Amy can remember me back into existence! HURRAY! LET'S HAVE FISH FINGERS AND CUSTARD.

Doctor Who is not a fairy tale.

Doctor Who is not hard SF either. It NEVER has been. Not once. Not a single episode, even leaving aside that the protagonist is an immortal Time Lord flying around space and time in a machine that is science fantasy at its essence. Thankfully, it's never quite gone as technobabbly as STNG at its worst, but seriously: "the science parts are too hard" as a problem that Moffat has and other Doctor Who show-runners and writers have not? I don't know what you've been watching, mate, but it's not Doctor Who. And being wished back into existence is different than being wished back from being a shriveled elf-thing in a cage by all of humanity shouting your name at the same time, or sucking Daleks and Cybermen into a magic void with a magic machine or having your companion possessed by a literal deus ex machina from the magic time machine and destroying all the Daleks? I'm not seeing the distinction here on the level of non-copout-ery, just on the level of execution of the cop-outs.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on April 26, 2011, 01:49:16 PM
Execution matters a fuckload.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 26, 2011, 03:50:56 PM

And being wished back into existence is different than being wished back from being a shriveled elf-thing in a cage by all of humanity shouting your name at the same time, or sucking Daleks and Cybermen into a magic void with a magic machine or having your companion possessed by a literal deus ex machina from the magic time machine and destroying all the Daleks? I'm not seeing the distinction here on the level of non-copout-ery, just on the level of execution of the cop-outs.


Are you under the impression that no-one complained about that exact shit when it was done by RTD ?

Because I seem to remember that happening.  His Davros Series-ender was just as bad as the Magic Doctor in a Box, while we're pointing out the self-serving shite.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 26, 2011, 07:14:33 PM
I remember the complaints. But then they heighten my question: what's the gold standard? What are you guys remembering that is non-Davies, non-Moffat that gets your tits a-quivering with its pure unalloyed goodness?

My tits have a lower quiver-standard, I guess.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on April 26, 2011, 07:22:45 PM
When has Doctor Who ever been so awesome?  It's always been seasons of good and bad.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on April 27, 2011, 02:09:18 AM
The understanding that the Beeb is selling this to an American market heavily should explain much to you.


It indeed does. Now the slurping noises that could be heard throughout the episode are a riddle to me no longer.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on April 27, 2011, 10:43:42 AM
I remember the complaints. But then they heighten my question: what's the gold standard? What are you guys remembering that is non-Davies, non-Moffat that gets your tits a-quivering with its pure unalloyed goodness?

My tits have a lower quiver-standard, I guess.


Much of the Tom Baker run, provided you overlook the effects (which were after all part of the fun), and really a lot of what went before Colin Baker.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 27, 2011, 11:20:08 AM
I love me some Tom Baker too, but apply the same standards to his episodes and a lot of them aren't going to hold up very well either, ignoring the different pacing of the story structure then. There was no arc at all in his early episodes; the Key to Time was hugely uneven, had a WTF conclusion and the Black Guardian was a totally clownshoes villain.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 27, 2011, 11:36:37 AM
I remember the complaints. But then they heighten my question: what's the gold standard? What are you guys remembering that is non-Davies, non-Moffat that gets your tits a-quivering with its pure unalloyed goodness?

My tits have a lower quiver-standard, I guess.


Before that? It was all carboard box robots and monster suits made out of old carpets, filmed in black and white, with really shit audio, shown on late night PBS.

[/american view of Dr. Who]  :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Numtini on April 27, 2011, 01:21:48 PM
We both liked the new episode and neither of us was particularly a fan of last season. I would strongly agree that the episodes weren't bad, but the arc was muddled. I didn't know it was supposed to last longer, but that makes perfect sense.

And are you sure it was the episodes that were in B/W and not your tv? I thought Baker was the first doctor broadcast in the US.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 27, 2011, 01:55:01 PM
We both liked the new episode and neither of us was particularly a fan of last season. I would strongly agree that the episodes weren't bad, but the arc was muddled. I didn't know it was supposed to last longer, but that makes perfect sense.

And are you sure it was the episodes that were in B/W and not your tv? I thought Baker was the first doctor broadcast in the US.

For a long time, I never quite knew what exactly Dr. Who was. A brit show about a time traveling dude. Occasionally I'd see an episode on PBS, and it would be in black and white, and have atrocious audio, so I couldn't follow the story well.

Now that the show has revived, I've actually sought out some of the older stuff, out of curiosity.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 27, 2011, 06:19:42 PM
The last season of Pertwee was broadcast on some US PBS stations.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Numtini on April 28, 2011, 08:27:23 AM
Pertwee's in color. Vivid color. Very Austin Powers. (No, I'm not that big of a geek, out of nostalgia we rented Time Warrior the first appearance of Sarah Jane and were watching it last night.)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: adjunct on April 29, 2011, 05:25:54 PM
I don't have words.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 30, 2011, 12:42:01 PM
Oh For Fucks Sake.

Edit :

Plot holes as big as a bus (AGAIN) and the story makes no sense whatsoever once you think about it.  However, a much better second episode than first and as long as you can get over the fact that the story is utterly impossible, it's actually rather ok.  However :  The last Two Minutes FUCKS IT ALL.

SERIOUSLY, LEAVE IT ALONE YOU BASTARDS.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on April 30, 2011, 12:54:45 PM
So you don't like series-long story arcs, then?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 30, 2011, 12:59:20 PM
I don't mind them if they're any good.

But we've had a few now that have been utterly predictable wank purely for fan shock value and, hey, Look At That !!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on April 30, 2011, 03:21:23 PM
Honestly I felt the episode worked more or less. Yes there were ridiculous plot holes but I liked the means of resolution purely because it wasn't utterly ridiculous.

One question:
One main complaint:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 30, 2011, 03:33:48 PM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on April 30, 2011, 03:35:31 PM
Well fuck,


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on April 30, 2011, 09:46:39 PM
I liked it. I'm hearing that it'll all sort out at the end. If it doesn't, I'm going back to Wales and beating the living shit out of Moffat.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: adjunct on April 30, 2011, 11:16:31 PM
I liked it. I'm hearing that it'll all sort out at the end. If it doesn't, I'm going back to Wales and beating the living shit out of Moffat.

He isn't alone in it. He has plenty of enablers.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 01, 2011, 12:04:17 AM

I think they need to rename this show The New Adventures of Amy Pond.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 01, 2011, 02:21:14 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 01, 2011, 02:23:56 AM
It was the TARDIS in the lodger episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 01, 2011, 04:26:39 AM
The Silence's pseudo-TARDIS was in The Lodger last series - you know, the pilotless one that kept luring humans up as replacement pilots and then killing them because they weren't capable of actually being pilots.

Speculation: And now we have Amy's Schroedinger's fœtus, who is the daughter of two time-travellers and being gestated inside a time machine, and also has other wibbly-wobbly...stuff going on. So the Silence kidnap her and plan to use her as their pilot. Except she's dying, so they build a superadvanced life-support system and cram it into a space suit. And then cram her into the suit. And the plot goes from there.


E: VVV Why? It's all speculation based on stuff that's already aired (Amy is pregnant...ish, the kid has a picture of Amy + baby, we know 'normal' humans can't pilot a Silent-TARDIS, etc. etc.)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 01, 2011, 04:30:58 AM
Some people are gonna be mad if you don't spoiler that.

I don't care, since it's clearly all shite, true or not.

 :why_so_serious:

 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 01, 2011, 06:02:10 AM
I thought the concept of the monsters was interesting but the story gave us more questions than answers and I don't know how confident I am that we'll ever get answers that make sense.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 01, 2011, 06:07:23 AM
Really ?  Fair enough.  Confirming that would require me rewatching it.  Don't intend to.

I'm still stuck on how the hell they organised themselves against an enemy that makes you forget they exist.  Really.  I had major problems with that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 01, 2011, 06:17:16 AM
I'm almost certain the Doctor's daughter regenerated way back when. They all left her dead and were :sadf: then after they left she regenerated and blasted off into space in what I had expected to be the launch of a new spin-off featuring a scantily clad hot girl/kids show (that's either/or not a combination).

The two parter really did need a few bits of the Doctor staring at walls going, "There are holes, holes in the plot and they're spreading!" That would have been a series reference I'd have appreciated :grin: I'm also wondering if the more gung ho, "Kill them all and let God decide!" Doctor is a deliberate thing for US audiences or just how Moffat wants the Doctor played. He seems to be trying to tread a line between the Doctor not liking guns and violence and still getting into firefights and fucking up his enemies in a manner I don't really think works. Gah, the story for this gets worse and worse as I notice things and think about it. It was at least entertaining enough at the time but I can never really shake the feeling that that's down more to the actors than the writing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 01, 2011, 06:31:06 AM
I like the idea that the Silence had always been there, manipulating human history. It made no sense that the Doctor had never noticed this before, especially if they have been there for thousands of years, but Dr Who always put a good story ahead of continuity and that's ok by me.
How do you know the Doc has never met them before?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 01, 2011, 06:36:36 AM
The Doctor was able to tell the Daleks were manipulating the Earth by looking at it's tech level for five and a half seconds.

Even if he didn't remember what was doing it, the fact of it being done should be canonically apparent.

Ahem.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on May 01, 2011, 07:55:51 AM
Moffat fucks with continuity way too much. His "Doctor Who as Fairy Tale" approach kills internal consistency of plot and characters. While if you don't think about it Moffat Who works, he is way too ready to piss all over established lore for too little payback.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on May 01, 2011, 12:55:15 PM
Weird. I totally didn't make the connection between Amy's pregnancy, the time lord kid, and the kid in the space suit. I figured it was going to be another completely unrelated time lord, like maybe the Master or someone. Even the Doctor's Daughter.

I thought the Silence being foreshadowed last year was a kinda "Oh...really? Um...ok." moment.

I'm still stuck on how the hell they organised themselves against an enemy that makes you forget they exist.  Really.  I had major problems with that.

I don't think it was so much organized warfare, as looking at the TV, seeing someone who's going to destroy you, then turning around and seeing them right there. After long enough, the Silence have to either leave, or keep dieing off one by one.

Honestly, I freaking loved how that was done. I was all "OH MY GAWD" when I realized what he was doing, the likes of which I hadn't had in a long time.

Yet I'm hating the screwdriver as a pewpew device. And also hating the Doctor being ok hanging around with with a murderer.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 01, 2011, 01:15:26 PM
I don't think you understood what I was saying.  I was talking about the Doctor and Co.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 01, 2011, 02:07:41 PM
And furthermore, in reply to Ironwood



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 01, 2011, 05:22:11 PM

Yeah, the more I think about this one, the more it annoys the shit out of me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sky on May 01, 2011, 10:28:34 PM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 02, 2011, 03:16:21 AM
I don't think you've been erased from existence when there's a pile of your ashes on the ground.  I think you just got Burned.

/Michael Westen


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 02, 2011, 07:20:50 AM
I don't think you understood what I was saying.  I was talking about the Doctor and Co.

It's hardly the first time, though. See: Vervoids, Ice Warrior fleet, Racnoss, the whole "ending the Time War" thing...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 02, 2011, 08:35:57 AM
The Doctor is demonstrably inconsistent about killing. He is certainly willing to allow UNIT or other associates to fight back when necessary. He himself will pull the plug on an adversary that is threatening genocide with no other solution presenting itself--I thought his anguish over the killing of the Daleks in "Journey's End" was more inconsistent than otherwise. (His anguish over the Time War's end is now clearly much more about the fact that he had to genocide his own people, including his family.) But in this case, I think it's also clear that he's looking to checkmate the Silence and force them to stay away from humanity rather than getting them all dead.

I did find the sonic screwdriver pew pew really oddly filmed--I assumed he was trying to disable the fake Tardis. But it was badly staged.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on May 02, 2011, 07:48:35 PM
I don't think you understood what I was saying.  I was talking about the Doctor and Co....

Ahh yeah, I didn't understand. Interesting point.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 03, 2011, 06:42:03 AM
Honestly, try to imagine the Guy from Memento organising a resistance movement.  Yeah.

And it was never explained what the fuck.  I entirely expected them to 'cop out' with 'Timelords are immune' but they actually made it clear that it affected him too.  So, I repeat, what the fuck ?

Another Moffat that has some shine to it but built on a foundation of quicksand.  I almost wish the guy wrote novels so I could rip the cunt out of them too.

(Also, they moved too fast.  The whole 'cut away, cut back and they're gone' just didn't make any sense.  Sure, if the person affected is losing time, that's fine, but it shouldn't happen when there's multiple people in the room, all of whom are looking in different directions.)


This is officially my last Dr Who Post of the Season until the end.  I really, really can't rant anymore, it's tired even to my ears and, frankly, I'm actually a really positive guy.  There's just so much shite out there right now in books, TV and films.  I may still answer questions tho.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 03, 2011, 08:06:48 AM
Wait, so you're still going to watch the show? Why bother, given the intensity of your feelings about it?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 03, 2011, 08:09:56 AM
Because I've watched it all my life and, even now, there are some hidden gems of episodes.

I really don't wanna miss the Gaiman one !


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sky on May 03, 2011, 08:10:36 AM
Alternative fuel in Scotland is rage. Probably just refilling the tank to heat the house next winter.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: adjunct on May 03, 2011, 11:11:16 PM
Because I've watched it all my life and, even now, there are some hidden gems of episodes.

I really don't wanna miss the Gaiman one !

I'm sure the Gaiman one will disappoint you as well.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 04, 2011, 02:39:46 AM
I'm sure it will.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 04, 2011, 09:29:35 AM
Ironwood is holding out for the repeal of Sturgeon's Law.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 04, 2011, 01:33:25 PM
But I don't even like caviar...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on May 04, 2011, 03:33:25 PM
No one does, people just eat it to prove what posh gits they are.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on May 05, 2011, 06:03:56 AM
I have to ask, for those of you who watched the original broadcast on the BBC, how long was it and was it broken up over two episodes? On BBC America we had the first hour one week and roughly 45 minutes for the conclusion the next week. There just seemed to be pieces missing between the two episdoes (either that or I need to watch it again to fully grasp it). I've seen BBC:A edit the hell out of the new episodes before and was wondering if they did it again.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sky on May 05, 2011, 10:33:17 AM
They took out a 15-minute scene of Amy Pond's tits.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 05, 2011, 12:01:03 PM
 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 05, 2011, 01:02:19 PM
I have to ask, for those of you who watched the original broadcast on the BBC, how long was it and was it broken up over two episodes? On BBC America we had the first hour one week and roughly 45 minutes for the conclusion the next week. There just seemed to be pieces missing between the two episdoes (either that or I need to watch it again to fully grasp it). I've seen BBC:A edit the hell out of the new episodes before and was wondering if they did it again.

There were two episodes and both were 45 minutes without adverts. The opening of episode two has Amy being chased in a desert.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on May 05, 2011, 01:09:27 PM
:oh_i_see:


Oh, like you wouldn't line up to see that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 05, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
Indeed.  Which is why I can assure you it wasn't in the BBC version I saw.

 :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 05, 2011, 02:18:05 PM
A 15-minute segment like that would erase all Moffat and Davies's sins combined.  :drill:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 05, 2011, 02:37:32 PM
(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9359/amyyc.jpg) (http://img18.imageshack.us/i/amyyc.jpg/)

That's all, carry on


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 07, 2011, 03:31:36 PM
Ok, that wasn't all that bad.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on May 07, 2011, 09:14:40 PM
Silly, fun and altogether fluffy, with plenty of Karen Gillan stealing the show.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on May 08, 2011, 12:43:30 AM
Cute. I'm hoping that dreadful intro is only on the American showings though. The whole, "I'm Amy and this magical man in a blue box came and changed my life" thing rankles mightily.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 08, 2011, 01:28:25 AM
Eh ?

We certainly didn't get that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 08, 2011, 10:12:18 AM
It's strictly for the Americans. The BBC obviously thinks Americans are stupid and need some extra hand-holding in order to understand the show.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 08, 2011, 10:32:50 AM
It's Harsh, but Fair.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on May 08, 2011, 11:55:26 AM
Reminds me of the dumbed down Pratchett Covers for the American market. I see a trend here.

On topic, this episode, I didn't hate it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 08, 2011, 01:08:48 PM
Enjoyed it as a simple and fun episode. Then I started thinking more about the Silence shit and total lack of sense and appreciated this infinitely more in comparison. Also I'm now compelled to list things that annoyed me about the opening 2 parter (spoilered for people who are fed up with moaning about it and, well, for spoilers):



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on May 08, 2011, 01:23:51 PM
Only halfway through the pirates episode, but beforehand was the season opener, and I just had this thought.


Also whenever I type "spoiler" I can hear River Song saying it in my head.  :oh_i_see: Ugh.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 08, 2011, 01:26:51 PM
Couple of things :  

1 - This arc ain't done yet.  Silence ain't done yet.  Alas.  Not going to go into my thoughts because lolmoffat, but the hatches in Amys mind are part of it.
2 - The whole story makes no sense.  He's become typecast for stories that don't make any sense.  Girl in the fireplace and Blink were fucking awesome episodes, but THINK about them :  They both have the 'Why ?' factor.  Great stories but, really....
3 - The Doctor actually shot someone with his screwdriver.  Seriously.  I've rewatched it now and he SHOOTS AN ALIEN WITH HIS SCREWDRIVER.  Fucking Clownshoes. (So, not helping the Silence.  Killing 'em.)


I agree the method of sorting it was cool, but again I have doubts about how in character it was.

But yeah, Pirates one was refreshing.  Both for the lighthearted and easygoing story and for the fact that it was a rehash of two Dr Who stories done before, both of which I loved.

Also.  Pirates.  You know.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on May 10, 2011, 11:26:16 AM
Well, after watching the first two episodes again, things made a little more sense. There was just a ton of shit going on in those first two episodes that I think I suffered a little mental overload. And now having watched the pirates episode, I'm kind of happy to see another little reoccurring element that apparently only deals with Amy (the woman in the walls). This alone will keep me watching just to see what the hell that's all about.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 10, 2011, 01:32:09 PM
I thought it was a traditional silly Doctor Who story which was rather good. The pirate captain was sensible casting. Having a heavyweight actor who's willing to take it seriously makes the silly aspects even more fun. However, I thought they should have saved Lily Cole for an episode which had aliens in it, because frankly she looks like an alien anyway.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 10, 2011, 01:44:37 PM
It's strictly for the Americans. The BBC obviously thinks Americans are stupid and need some extra hand-holding in order to understand the show.

They added that piece of shit for the American version? That irks the shit out of me. That's Amy intro is one of the reasons I said they should just call it the New Adventures of Amelia Pond.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 10, 2011, 02:52:47 PM
Is this what the Americans see?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-HYqcTXev0


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 10, 2011, 02:57:01 PM
Yep, that's it. Annoys the piss out of me.

The pirate episode was a decent enough episode. It didn't require mental gymnastics to reconcile and was well-acted.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 10, 2011, 04:14:39 PM
I liked it well enough. I find it hilarious that those of you whose vaginas are forever sandy about plot holes seemed to have liked it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 10, 2011, 05:08:09 PM
On the list of plot-holey Dr. Who episodes, it's pretty low - but the list has gotten quite long.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 10, 2011, 05:32:15 PM
Apart from the Amazing Disappearing Pirate, you mean?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 10, 2011, 06:26:15 PM
The basic storyline made sense and that's always been good enough for me. Even "making sense" means in sense in the context of Doctor Who, which has never been big on consistency. Most fans of the show will forgive a lot if an episode has a good monster and some jokes and a spooky atmosphere.

When episodes are bad it's not because there's some small plot hole or unanswered question, it's because the basic storyline was nonsensical or just awful. It really makes no difference to this story what happened to the missing pirate, even if it would have been interesting to know, but when a story climaxes with the Doctor returning from the void because if you wish hard enough then wishes can come true! then it's impossible to ignore.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 10, 2011, 07:16:21 PM
You know, "coming back if you wish hard enough" made more story sense and was developed better than "the disappearing pirate". The latter, unless Moffat has a huge plan for 'time being rewritten' to be unveiled later, is just a script lapse, not that big a deal unless you're a sand-vagine. But you know, coming back from wishing? It was practically the central theme of that entire season. You may not like it, fine, but what the fuck, it's like complaining that there's a scene in "Peter Pan" where it turns out you can save fairies from death by believing in them hard enough. (or a protagonist who never grows up). Oh, I know, it's NOT DOCTOR WHO in some imaginary bullshit version you guys have in your minds where the Doctor is a hard SF character who used to be a bit character in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books. See, I remember the character who always had a magic screwdriver and survived death a zillion times and tricked rubber-suited aliens with rubbish tricks and technobabble gimmicks. All of which I've always enjoyed, except for maybe in the worst depths of the John Nathan-Turner years.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on May 11, 2011, 02:05:49 AM
In terms of Who gaffes, the amazing disappearing pirate doesn't even raise an eyebrow. Was he skulking in corner behind the water barrel? Was he the one pirate climbing up into the rigging in the storm scene (probably not, but couldn't be bothered to rewind)? I tell myself he likely did his job and kept out of the camera view or he was taken by the Holodoc offscreen for having the wound the boy gave him.

Both cases don't change the way the episode works.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 11, 2011, 03:20:00 AM
Is this what the Americans see?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-HYqcTXev0

Hmmm.  Ok.  I can see WHY they do that for American audiences if you remember that A - It's a Kids Show and B - Americans haven't really 'grown up' with it.   I can see how it would annoy the shit out of you every week though.

As to Khaldun :  Psycho.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 11, 2011, 04:15:10 AM
The basic storyline made sense and that's always been good enough for me. Even "making sense" means in sense in the context of Doctor Who, which has never been big on consistency. Most fans of the show will forgive a lot if an episode has a good monster and some jokes and a spooky atmosphere.

Oh, I know, it's NOT DOCTOR WHO in some imaginary bullshit version you guys have in your minds where the Doctor is a hard SF character who used to be a bit character in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books.

I'll be back when I have more pics of Amy to post


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 11, 2011, 04:32:33 AM
Good Man.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Arthur_Parker on May 11, 2011, 09:09:50 AM
Ok I watched the first episode of series 6 but wasn't impressed, but just watched the first episode of series 5 it was good, Amy isn't bad looking so I'll see how far through 5 I get.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 11, 2011, 09:42:34 AM
Is this what the Americans see?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-HYqcTXev0

Hmmm.  Ok.  I can see WHY they do that for American audiences if you remember that A - It's a Kids Show and B - Americans haven't really 'grown up' with it. 

Actually, a lot of the current audience DID grow up with Doctor Who. But yeah, the BBC America audience might not have. Still don't think it's at all needed, but it appears BBC America is going balls deep on trying to promote the show to anyone who might remotely watch.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sky on May 11, 2011, 10:25:22 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: JWIV on May 11, 2011, 11:02:58 AM
All my +rep to Sky.  :heart:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 11, 2011, 05:04:00 PM
You win the thread.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 12, 2011, 01:55:17 AM
One of those was posted a while back.  Second one is new though.

Bet Matt took a couple of good pics.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 13, 2011, 02:57:45 AM
Quote
steven_moffat 8:56am via Web

I've peaked! I've had a tweet that just says "Fuck off!" Clearly I win Twitter.

I'm just amazed it took this long.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 13, 2011, 02:49:05 PM
Why, when did you post it?  :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on May 14, 2011, 10:23:06 AM
That was me.

And yes, i grew up with the bloody Doctor, I don't need Amy's goddamn intro.

"he's a time lord"

"it doesn't mean he knows what he's doing"


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 14, 2011, 09:41:02 PM
Ok, come on, you guys have to liked that one. I thought it was pretty damn great.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on May 15, 2011, 02:43:44 AM
The basic storyline made sense and that's always been good enough for me. Even "making sense" means in sense in the context of Doctor Who, which has never been big on consistency. Most fans of the show will forgive a lot if an episode has a good monster and some jokes and a spooky atmosphere.

Oh, I know, it's NOT DOCTOR WHO in some imaginary bullshit version you guys have in your minds where the Doctor is a hard SF character who used to be a bit character in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books.

I'll be back when I have more pics of Amy to post

name drop time, when i was in Sacramento, my office was across the hall from Lisa,  Kim's wife.  One of the most gentle, kind people I have ever known.


So:   Neil,   maybe it was a good story on paper, but so much happened, or rather could have happened that it felt like it was a two parter that got edited down to one.   I did love the nod to the 70's repeating corridor bit though.

realization time: I have again and again mentioned "Vincent and the Doctor" as the landmark for what this era of Who could be, just rewatched it and realized that matt and karen had very little to do with what made that so amazing.   My god, hire Vincent and any of his friends who happen to be about ASAP plz.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 15, 2011, 05:33:08 AM
Apparently it wasn;t so much "ran out of time" as "ran out of budget"  - it wasn't going to be endless corridors but a bunch of TARDIS rooms in a variety of styles (including the Zero Room) and the 'old' console room was going to be one of the old ones, rebuilt from scratch. Oh, and the Ood was going to be a random_other_new_alien but they dragged the ood-suit out of storage instead, because it was cheaper.

Random aside: Supposedly, Neil Gaiman played the FASA Doctor Who RPG back in the day. His character's name? The Corsair.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: adjunct on May 15, 2011, 10:42:54 AM
Apparently it wasn;t so much "ran out of time" as "ran out of budget"  - it wasn't going to be endless corridors but a bunch of TARDIS rooms in a variety of styles (including the Zero Room) and the 'old' console room was going to be one of the old ones, rebuilt from scratch. Oh, and the Ood was going to be a random_other_new_alien but they dragged the ood-suit out of storage instead, because it was cheaper.

I enjoyed the episode but now am sad to read what could have been. Thanks for that.  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on May 15, 2011, 11:36:06 PM
I thought it was pretty good. I loved seeing the TARDIS personified. She was pretty much what I'd expect. Also great fun to see her relationship with the Doctor through her eyes.

A lot of people try to make "the ship" in any series as "its own character", and most fail. It's a neat kind of sentiment, but you really have to work to make it come out. And working too hard at it just makes it dumb. (In this case, I don't think Doctor Who ever really makes the TARDIS its own character. I never watched much before Eccleston though.)

I totally got the feeling there were supposed to be reconstructed sets here. I got that feeling so much, that I just assumed they did all that off-camera.

Overall, I thought it started wordy and novel-y, but once it got going, it was pretty solid. That one line? Pretty damn thin.
Yawn.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 16, 2011, 06:44:46 AM
There's tons of references scattered through the whole series to the Tardis as alive, as organic tech--Jon Pertwee, the third Doctor, said as much at one point. (And calls it "old girl" several times.)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 16, 2011, 07:27:00 AM
An ok episode with actually quite a good idea but the execution was a little flat for me.  I think Gaiman really went to his comfort zone, so I wasn't really blown away.

I have to recognise some really good performances tho.  All 4 main cast were excellent and played it really powerfully.

Also, you kind of have to roll your eyes a little bit at building a TARDIS so very easily, but I've often been surprised by the things they manage on Scrapyard Challenge, so maybe I should shut my yap.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on May 16, 2011, 08:48:31 AM
It definitely felt squashed, either in terms of time or budget generally, felt like there was space for more to happen and stuff like the 'Old Tardis rooms' chase would have made this a pretty great episode. It was entertaining though, maybe not one I'd tell anyone to watch but I enjoyed it.

Oh God just realised this was my assessment of most of Gaiman's novels as well, not sure if that's his fault in this case though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 18, 2011, 04:42:58 PM
That was the kind of episode I expect out of Doctor Who. It was about THE DOCTOR, not his companions, and for once, it was contingent on Amy doing something to enable the Doctor to do what he does. Best episode so far this season. I was really hoping to see the old Baker era control room show up, but can see where the budget wouldn't allow it. I also think it could have been a better two-parter than some of the stories they've devoted two parts to needlessly.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on May 18, 2011, 05:01:06 PM
That was the kind of episode I expect out of Doctor Who. It was about THE DOCTOR, not his companions, and for once, it was contingent on Amy doing something to enable the Doctor to do what he does.

Hells Yes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on May 22, 2011, 08:30:52 AM
I was in Portugal when the Gaiman episode aired, so I've only just now caught up with it.

One of the best, imo. Yes, perhaps it could have been made into a two parter, not just because I think they could have explored more areas of the story (not to mention the TARDIS) but also because our time with Idris/'Sexy' was so brief. Suranne Jones had a hell of a part to live up to and I think she nailed it - in fact, and maybe this ties in with what Ironwood said about Gaiman being in his comfort zone - Idris/'Sexy' comes across as something very similar to one of the Endless of the Sandman universe - quite Delerium-esque. Matt Smith's 'don't know if my heart is broken...' face as she dissipated was fantastic, as was the whole depiction of their sadly short anthropomorphic relationship.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 22, 2011, 04:38:39 PM
I thought "The Rebel Flesh" was ok. Good conceptually, but the pacing and direction were a muddle in much of the episode.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on May 23, 2011, 12:17:51 AM
I almost changed the channel halfway through "Rebel Flesh", due to boredom. But the last time I did that was during last season's episode with the evolved dinosaurs in the center of the earth, and missed out on the big story arc bomb at the end. So I stuck through this one, and no such bomb.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on May 23, 2011, 12:38:24 AM
I almost changed the channel halfway through "Rebel Flesh", due to boredom. But the last time I did that was during last season's episode with the evolved dinosaurs in the center of the earth, and missed out on the big story arc bomb at the end. So I stuck through this one, and no such bomb.  :oh_i_see:



I expected everyone


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 23, 2011, 05:18:01 AM
I liked the first half of the ganger story. It seemed like a good old-fashioned Doctor Who story.

One thing I'm not sure on (and this makes the whole pregnancy thing a bit confusing)



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on May 23, 2011, 05:26:02 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 23, 2011, 06:39:13 AM
Sigh.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 23, 2011, 11:48:56 AM
Yeah, ^ that ^.

This was an ok episode, but it felt a lot like a rehash of the evolved dinosaurs living on earth already episode from last season. "We'll all get along!" "NO WE WON'T" *SHOTS FIRED* "Why did you do that?" "Because I'm a human and we are thick and stupid."

Let's hope having a synthflesh Time Lord running around isn't fuckstupid.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 24, 2011, 05:26:25 PM
So...you're saying it's like a classic Dr Who episode?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 25, 2011, 03:07:15 AM
I'd just like to clarify that I was sighing about the spoiler.  I can't read without anal leakage.

I don't judge two parters until they're over.  We'll see what they do to the Doctor copy;  though I will say that the precedent is already there many times so they don't have a lot of leeway to be totally clownshoes.  I suspect that won't stop them.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on May 26, 2011, 09:48:57 AM
I'd just like to clarify that I was sighing about the spoiler.  I can't read without anal leakage.
:why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on May 26, 2011, 11:55:46 AM
:why_so_serious:




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 26, 2011, 12:04:06 PM
We could play this game forever.  I've found it best to wait until the retardery unleashes itself.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on May 26, 2011, 12:21:28 PM
Nothing we come up with could be quite as stupid, insulting, and nonsensical as what they've come up with. I have faith in this.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 26, 2011, 12:33:48 PM
Yes, that's precisely my point.  It started with TinkerDoctor Vs The Master and, frankly, the arcs have been going downhill since, if that's possible to imagine.

Just leave arcs alone for a while, God, please.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on May 26, 2011, 04:26:32 PM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 28, 2011, 01:25:20 PM
Oh God, Just Please Stop.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 29, 2011, 04:38:08 AM
Oh God, Just Please Stop.
:roll:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on May 29, 2011, 09:47:13 AM
<David Tennant Doctor's Voice> "Helllo, I'm the Doctor!"
<Matt Smith Flesh Doctor's Voice> "NO LET IT GO, WE'VE MOVED ON!"

 :heart:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 29, 2011, 02:08:21 PM
Was there a new episode in the UK last night? Because we got a double feature of the Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon on BBC America.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on May 29, 2011, 04:14:46 PM
The US episode got pushed a week because of Memorial Day.  There was a new one in the UK.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 30, 2011, 03:11:09 AM
I think you call it a 'Stay of Execution' in America.

 :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 04, 2011, 01:39:16 PM
The latest episode, A Good Man Goes to War, was insane but fun. The next episode is called "Let's Kill Hitler", apparently.

If Mr Moffat is reading this, I just want to point out that he is a doctor of science, not medicine. He's called The Doctor because he has a doctorate, not because he heals people.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2011, 01:46:53 PM
If Mr Moffat is reading this, I make no apologies for calling him a talentless cunt and would, in fact, wish his children dead of some wasting disease.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on June 04, 2011, 04:18:21 PM
 :ye_gods: and not in a good way

That is all.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on June 04, 2011, 04:39:28 PM
I never knew hatred was something you could taste in the testicles.  Before that, at least. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2011, 04:45:32 PM
Hey, where have you Been ???


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on June 04, 2011, 10:03:04 PM
That was... awful. Mr Moffat really needs to die in a fire. Slowly.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on June 05, 2011, 02:16:37 AM
What the fuck is wrong with Moffat? He certainly knows how to write, his other stuff is not bad. I gave him quite some leeway because of that. But when it comes to Doctor Who his writing reaches lower and lower depths. Did a Doctor Who impersonator touch him in a bad place as a child and now he wants to destroy everything Who as a late retaliation?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 05, 2011, 07:01:38 AM
I'm evidently in another universe where "awful" means something different. Weird that we are able to communicate so easily via this message board.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 05, 2011, 07:58:44 AM
Sontaran Nurse was good.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 05, 2011, 08:31:21 AM
Can't really call it an end-of-season-finale but it definitely feels like this mid season break is going to be a long wait.
Lots of fantastic touches; Rory-Roman truly delivers as a badass, the Sontaran Nurse was a thing of comic beauty, Silurian Victorian-era Adventuress/Crimefighter was so very cool that I expect to see her again (quite the bawdy lesbian joke slipped in there, Moffat). Right now it's still difficult to see where everything will fit in, but I have faith in Moffat's ability to deliver a long con.

Incidentally, while I thought some of the ranting in this thread has been amusing in a sort of deluded 'special edition' manner, when you start wishing ill of someone's children because they don't deliver the kind of rose-tinted spectacle you truly believe you deserve, you're not being funny anymore.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on June 05, 2011, 09:05:02 AM
I've got to agree with you there Matt. I realize that Doctor Who brings back precious memories of youth for people but some of you really need to get a grip.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 05, 2011, 10:59:03 AM
Silurian Victorian-era Adventuress/Crimefighter was so very cool that I expect to see her again (quite the bawdy lesbian joke slipped in there, Moffat).


The only reason he did that is so he could make a Victorian Silurian Lesbian joke.  The unashamed cunt.  The Gay thing in Dr Who has now reached such levels of silliness that we specifically put a married male couple in there just so we can CUT THE HEAD OFF ONE OF THEM.  Yeah.  No deep issues about Russel there.

And Double swords eh ?  Really cool.  I mean, Katanas and everything.  You must have been wanking into your hanky at the sight.



Right now it's still difficult to see where everything will fit in, but I have faith in Moffat's ability to deliver a long con.


So much wrong here, it's hard to know where to start.  This sentence is just wrong at almost every word.  Were you seriously surprised by ANYTHING in the last season ?  Did it really not telegraph itself the entire time, right up to the bloody stupid wishing on a star ending ?  That's a strange admission.

I'm not being funny.  I have this recurring nightmare where his kids PICK UP A PEN AT SOME POINT AND START SCRIPTING.  This must be stopped.  Let's Kill Hitler.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 05, 2011, 11:09:53 AM
And Double swords eh ?  Really cool.  I mean, Katanas and everything.  You must have been wanking into your hanky at the sight.

I didn't feel it was necessary to italicize or stick inverted commas around cool. I was making a statement of fact rather than pronouncing my undying fucking love for the character tropes. But hey, if thats your overriding vision of me, so be it, I'm not one to spoil other people's jollies.


Quote
I'm not being funny.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 05, 2011, 11:11:44 AM
Take yersel tae fuck.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on June 05, 2011, 11:21:28 AM
You should have done that yourself back on page 23  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 05, 2011, 11:26:32 AM
I liked the fact that the villains of the story appear to be the Church of England.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_a3o7USF8hwA/So0fkAnZIiI/AAAAAAAABDo/Fi3GaD1hQFI/s400/tea+vicar.jpg)

(I guess the Church of Scotland would have been too scary for children).

I say appear because fuck knows what was really going on.

The gay marriage thing was a bit odd. It's hardly seen as a big thing today (for anyone who doesn't know, you can get married more or less (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnership_in_the_United_Kingdom) in the UK today if you are a gay couple) so I don't see why people will still be making self-conscious jokes about it in the future.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 05, 2011, 02:39:19 PM
You know the folks who over on Certain Other Threads who are convincing themselves that because Shadowfax is supposed to be grey and in Jackson's movie he's white or some similar thing that Jackson has perpetrated a crime against humankind and produced a cinematic abortion worse than "Gigli"?

Well, that kinda seems well-balanced and proportional to declaring Geek Fatwas against Moffat and his entire extended family because somehow his version of Who doesn't seem as special as watching Tom Baker ham it up with some rubber monsters over a ten-part serial filled with padding and corridor chases.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 05, 2011, 03:23:26 PM
That's what they said, yes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on June 05, 2011, 04:44:47 PM
Didn't much like the conclusion of The Almost Flesh. I could almost forgive the sonic screwdriver showing up in two different places at the same time, but  really felt like lazy handwaving. And the explanation for Amy's pregnancy/not-pregnancy really made no fucking sense.

It isn't that the stories aren't as "special" as Tom Baker or whatever it is you think gets my goat about these things, it's that they make no fucking sense even in the nonsensical world of Dr. Who.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on June 05, 2011, 11:59:04 PM

I was wondering about the screwdriver thing too.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: adjunct on June 06, 2011, 12:01:19 AM
Didn't much like the conclusion of The Almost Flesh. I could almost forgive the sonic screwdriver showing up in two different places at the same time, but  really felt like lazy handwaving. And the explanation for Amy's pregnancy/not-pregnancy really made no fucking sense.

It isn't that the stories aren't as "special" as Tom Baker or whatever it is you think gets my goat about these things, it's that they make no fucking sense even in the nonsensical world of Dr. Who.

Please download the newest episode and get on the same page as the rest of us.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 06, 2011, 03:22:21 AM

I was wondering about the screwdriver thing too.




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on June 06, 2011, 10:20:10 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 06, 2011, 10:26:00 AM
Just to be clear: I thought the Ganger two-parter was very muddled in the way it was scripted and staged. Definitely one of the lesser episodes of New Who, whether Moffat or RTD. (Not as bad as last season's excreable Dalek episode, though). The way Smith acted the two-Doctors part was exceptionally well-done, though. I'm still assuming deliberate misdirection on the Ganger Doctor's fate with the assumption that he's the one who died in the first episode of the season--or that the Doctor's going to go back and make another Ganger for the same reason, to pull the same trick on his enemies that they were pulling on him with Amy.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on June 06, 2011, 09:25:57 PM
 :heartbreak:


thats about it for me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on June 09, 2011, 07:40:47 AM
Just to be clear: I thought the Ganger two-parter was very muddled in the way it was scripted and staged. Definitely one of the lesser episodes of New Who, whether Moffat or RTD. (Not as bad as last season's excreable Dalek episode, though). The way Smith acted the two-Doctors part was exceptionally well-done, though. I'm still assuming deliberate misdirection on the Ganger Doctor's fate with the assumption that he's the one who died in the first episode of the season--or that the Doctor's going to go back and make another Ganger for the same reason, to pull the same trick on his enemies that they were pulling on him with Amy.

Issues with this: The ganger doctor  and the Flesh doesn't seem to maintain its form post death. Assuming any sort of continuity it would make it unlikely that the Spaceman meeting Doctor is a Flesh duplicate.

Of course there's that 'assuming any sort of continuity' they've shown they don't give a shit about.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 09, 2011, 08:28:25 AM
Just to be clear: I thought the Ganger two-parter was very muddled in the way it was scripted and staged. Definitely one of the lesser episodes of New Who, whether Moffat or RTD. (Not as bad as last season's excreable Dalek episode, though). The way Smith acted the two-Doctors part was exceptionally well-done, though. I'm still assuming deliberate misdirection on the Ganger Doctor's fate with the assumption that he's the one who died in the first episode of the season--or that the Doctor's going to go back and make another Ganger for the same reason, to pull the same trick on his enemies that they were pulling on him with Amy.

Issues with this: The ganger doctor  and the Flesh doesn't seem to maintain its form post death. Assuming any sort of continuity it would make it unlikely that the Spaceman meeting Doctor is a Flesh duplicate.

Of course there's that 'assuming any sort of continuity' they've shown they don't give a shit about.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 09, 2011, 08:58:49 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on June 12, 2011, 01:49:28 AM
Just saw the "summer finale."

Fuck's sake.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on June 12, 2011, 06:49:45 AM
Just saw the "summer finale."

Fuck's sake.
:why_so_serious:


I thought it was pretty cool. Maybe because I was prepared for the inevitable.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on June 13, 2011, 02:11:49 AM
Not bad. Hated the overused browbeating FAIRYTALEFAIRYTALEFAIRYTALEOMGFAIRYTALE at the start, was ready to hate it because it was never going to be through the Doctor's POV. But they shifted it to the Doctor's POV when he showed up, so I was happy.

I agree too much LOOKIT HOW GAY IS EVERYWHERE. The ending...let's face it, most of us knew what was coming. So it was all a matter of how they presented it, because we had to watch the characters figure it out. That was not bad.

I didn't pay much attention to the ganger stuff in the last two episodes. I just barely payed attention enough to know there may be more wax people somewhere.


The Last Centurion was badass. I like what they've done with Rory.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on June 13, 2011, 12:10:44 PM
Rory was awesome. I continue to maintain that the characters themselves are fantastic but the stories waver between brilliant to pure shit from week to week.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on June 13, 2011, 12:31:47 PM
Don't get me wrong, the Last Centurion was made of awesome and the fact that Amy talked about him and not the doctor would have made me squee if I was thusly inclined.

The stories and especially the story arcs aren't saved by the awesome characterizations, though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 14, 2011, 05:39:12 AM
You guys are broken. That was a fun, interesting episode--not just some great character bits (I'd watch a spinoff featuring the Silurian Detective and her lover the maidservant) but a generally well-plotted and interesting story. A few holes, a few problems, but nothing serious. About my only real beef is the way Amy is treated, but I almost wondered if some of the odd character reactions in the beginning involved the Silence and will be seen in a new light later on.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 15, 2011, 09:20:42 AM
Doctor Who in chaos! Private Eye reveals the behind-the-scenes rows placing Britain's best-loved television show at risk! And no full series in 2012!!!

Quote
. . . Showrunner and lead writer Steven Moffat has become expert at papering over the cracks, re-ordering episodes and finding creative reasons for spectacular monsters and CGI creations to be given as little screen-time as possible to save cash. But there was general dismay when sci-fi legend Neil Gaiman – whose much-anticipated episode had already had to be held over from the 2010 series due to a lack of funds – had to be informed that a further £200,000 shortfall in the budget meant he would have to rewrite it to include not the alien he had intended but instead an Ood which had been knocking about in the props store since 2006.

This, however, was far from the end of the bad news.

Programme chiefs in London were horrified to learn recently that BBC Wales is proposing not to make a full series of Doctor Who in 2012, but instead to put the programme on hiatus and merely bash out four “specials” as it did in 2009. This will leave an enormous hole in the BBC1 Saturday night schedule and a bigger one in the profits of BBC Worldwide, and will mean the corporation will be paying lead actor Matt Smith to spend most of the rest of this year doing nothing.

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=eye_tv&

I knew it!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 15, 2011, 09:01:57 PM
It's a weird story. I wish I understood what the fuck was going on behind the scenes. As far as I can tell the show is making good money for BBC.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on June 16, 2011, 12:09:13 PM
Ironwood is secretly director-general of the BBC and is trying to kill it.  :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: DraconianOne on June 17, 2011, 07:48:18 AM
It's a weird story. I wish I understood what the fuck was going on behind the scenes. As far as I can tell the show is making good money for BBC.

Many years ago, I had a conversation with a woman who used to do the wardrobe and makeup for Blakes 7. She said that they were given a small budget (£100 or so?) for each episode and it never changed. It meant that if they had an episode with just three people in it, they could spend more per head than if they had an episode with 20 people in it.  I don't think that's changed much since then.

Anyway, the BBC is, strictly speaking, not a profit making company (i.e. no shareholders) - it's a public service and run according to a public charter. It operates a lot of TV channels and radio channels. Any money that Dr Who might make (through syndication and licensing) gets pumped back into the BBC as a whole, not just Dr Who.  I also recall (but can't remember if it was a blog article or just a conversation) somethinig about the fact that the BBC makes nothing from all the sales of books, toys magazines etc - just the initial licensing cost. If I can be arsed and anyone's at all interested, I'll see if I can chase it up.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 17, 2011, 11:57:17 AM
Thats socialism!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on June 19, 2011, 01:48:10 AM
You guys are broken. That was a fun, interesting episode--not just some great character bits (I'd watch a spinoff featuring the Silurian Detective and her lover the maidservant) but a generally well-plotted and interesting story. A few holes, a few problems, but nothing serious.  

"I'm old!I'm fat! I'm BLUE!" :awesome_for_real:
TBH this was one of my fave episodes so far. Matt Smith is now my favorite doctor by a mile (granted, I've only been watching Dr. Who since the reboot). IMO he knocked this one out of the park. I do wonder how all this is going to add up though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on July 01, 2011, 08:35:14 PM

While looking for something totally different I ran across a Dr. Who rumor involving David Tennant. I'm sure many here will hate it if it's true, but I for one welcome our new Time OverLord  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on July 02, 2011, 01:38:20 AM
(http://www.dailyblam.com/sites/all/files/52385.jpg)

 :drill:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on July 02, 2011, 02:18:43 PM
Having seen the Fright Night trailer, I can't decide whether to be  :awesome_for_real: or  :ye_gods: over the overly dark and gritty tone they seem to be taking with the remake.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on July 02, 2011, 02:26:26 PM
Well rumor going round is that Tennant was so awesome they are gonna make Fright Night 2 all around his character.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on August 27, 2011, 09:05:41 PM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on August 27, 2011, 09:27:31 PM
Worst episode for a very long time. Probably the first time I've truly felt disappointed by Moffat. Enough with the DRAMA and REVELATIONS*. Give me some fucking WHO.


*read: enough with River Fucking Song already


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tale on August 27, 2011, 10:20:49 PM
I stopped watching at episode 6.2 (second episode of the previous season). I've been a Doctor Who fan since childhood (born in UK) and the Doctor and Amy are brilliantly cast, but it just got too camp, too celebratory of itself, I found River Song unbearable and I despised the Amy "he's the Doctor" voiceover at the start of each episode.

Is it worth catching up?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on August 27, 2011, 11:33:34 PM
No. not really.

As usual, the characters are great in this one, the chemistry works and I have always liked River Song. What I don't like is the stories and situations they are put into, and the ridiculous flouting of any sort of continuity or consistent rules in the stories. The whole Hitler thing was done for nothing but a laugh. It was window dressing for a very silly story.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2011, 06:44:24 AM
I liked it. Got a bit loose in parts, but I think the storyline of River Song/Melody Pond is starting to come together in some intriguing ways. I think Moffat does have to sit down and think about how to make timey-wimey work a bit more. I also think that the next season should have some more done-in-one stuff. It's heresy in nuWho but it might be time to not have an arc. Not that I want a bunch of base defense stories instead or whatever, but they need to nail down some episode-focused storytelling rather than just rushing ahead to the next mystery/arc-advancing thing.

I thought Matt Smith did an even better job than usual in this episode, though. His Doctor is really a great version of the character. His call-backs to Troughton in particular are great.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2011, 07:05:54 AM
Also, I'm more sure than ever regarding the likely resolution of the astronaut-kills-Doctor thing. Things that I think Moffat has to work in for that resolution to be tight and workable:



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Talpidae on August 28, 2011, 07:12:15 AM
I'm going to go with 'Who Gives A Fuck?'


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2011, 07:15:02 AM
Thanks for the update.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on August 28, 2011, 01:17:06 PM
I liked this episode a lot. I think it's the best I've seen with the new doctor.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on August 28, 2011, 02:28:20 PM
The actual episode wasn't horrible but fuck's sake that start to it made my ears start to bleed with the stupid. Again it felt a lot like they had a strong idea for the characters themselves, they're well written and the actors have good chemistry, they just keep sticking them in situations that are either totally idiotic or painfully self-aware. I think doing more single episode formats would serve Moffat much better simply because he can just about get away with actors/characters carrying the story if you know the story doesn't really matter. As soon as they start talking about the plot and 'serious important time-travelly wavelly' stuff that all falls down.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on August 28, 2011, 02:50:45 PM
Again it felt a lot like they had a strong idea for the characters themselves, they're well written and the actors have good chemistry, they just keep sticking them in situations that are either totally idiotic or painfully self-aware

Also the whole Hitler thing was obviously a time travelling trope joke but why the fuck would you do that? The show is not that new and they've not really gone in for utterly irrelevant big plot jokes about time travel. It's not particularly clever even if it did allow for a bit of humour.

Both of ^ This ^ times infinity. The characters and actors CARRY this show and are the only reasons I'm still watching. The goddamn stories make me want to slap someone British.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on August 28, 2011, 04:49:09 PM
I get the distinct impression Moffat is generally fantastic at writing characters and that when he has a good idea he's one of the best sci-fi writers getting stuff on television over here at least. The problem is he just doesn't seem to do epic particularly well and seems to feel that's what he has to be doing for Who. It also turns out either he or whoever he's got assisting just don't have that many great ideas and the result is that while his list of episodes has some really fucking awesome stuff in there the rest feels like stuff that's been stuck in just to get to the occasional great bits. Based purely on what he's done so far I'd say Moffat really needs someone that can write good series arcs and can work his good ideas into said arcs. I doubt we'll see anyone willingly giving up that level of control in something they really love.

Which is a shame because the man's clearly a great writer he just doesn't seem to be suited to a series with a running plot or at least not one where he seems to be going with quite a different idea of what is characteristic of the series to most of its fans. Granted this can sometimes be a good thing but in this case I think he's forgoing telling good stories in favour of 'clever' camp. Much the same way that the early Torchwood was so determined to be 'adult' action, they've achieved writing a caricature of what I'm assuming they set out to make. At least plot wise, like I said I think the characters in this work well enough that I'll keep watching it when I've got nothing better to do. In that regard I think Moffat's fortunate he's got a good casting eye (assuming he's responsible) as a mediocre Doctor would probably have really endangered viewers for it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2011, 08:17:01 PM
I think he's great at the following, in the following order:

1. Dialogue (come on, there were great lines in "Hitler")
2. Characters, particularly incidental characters. RTD could throw off character *ideas* and then not do so well with actual people; Moffat is the reverse. His actual characters, particularly incidentals, are great.
3. Writing to the actors. Not quite the same as characters.
4. Ideas for how to actually make use of a time-travel based series. Anybody ever play an old pen-and-paper RPG called Timemaster? It had terrifically clever rules in the expansion for dealing with stuff like putting a note to yourself in a container that could violate causality and allow you to save yourself from a deadly ambush. Moffat thinks along those lines, he's trying to work with those elements, something that Who often has avoided.


Where he falls down:

1. Narrative execution of complicated plotting ideas. He's really failing to wrap stuff up, and that's important.
2. Exposition (not info-dumps, but come on, let us in on some shit with some clarity)
3. Tightness of each episode's narrative arc
4. Not repeating plot motifs to excess (character almost dies, things you shouldn't look at, etc.)

Also, ALL show-runners for shows like this need to find a space for someone else to do some done-in-one episodes. Once it becomes your show too indelibly, down the rabbit hole you go, no matter how clever you are.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on August 28, 2011, 09:52:45 PM

stuff:



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on August 28, 2011, 09:54:53 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I think you guys are just too overcritical about TV shows.  I watch to be entertained, if I over thought as much as you all do, I'd never watch TV.

Mind you I don't think that Doctor Who is "OMG AMAZING" but it still is better than 95% of the other crap out there.

Or maybe it's just the weed.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on August 29, 2011, 03:11:20 AM
4. Ideas for how to actually make use of a time-travel based series. Anybody ever play an old pen-and-paper RPG called Timemaster? It had terrifically clever rules in the expansion for dealing with stuff like putting a note to yourself in a container that could violate causality and allow you to save yourself from a deadly ambush. Moffat thinks along those lines, he's trying to work with those elements, something that Who often has avoided.

I'd agree with everything except that. Dr. Who has actively avoided doing that kind of stuff, partly because the chances of ending up with a showdown between the Doctor and the Master that's just a remake of the Bill and Ted climax is way too likely. That kind of stuff can, just occasionally make for a clever plot point but really the time travel aspect is there to set up episodes in interesting places. Once you start making it a major factor in the stories themselves you've opened a can of plotting worms that just makes a mess because the temptation to do 'clever' or 'funny' stuff once you've started for the writer is probably going to be way too much. Also it's changing a big element of the show.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Talpidae on August 29, 2011, 03:17:42 AM
Eddie Murphy's 'Meet Dave'.
'Fantastic Voyage'
''Allo 'Allo'
'Bill and Ted'

And that was just at the start.  I don't understand how anyone can watch this anymore.  It's regurgitated crap and it's not even regurgitated well.  The Plot holes become so large they actually drown out other episodes, entirely unrelated.  It's shockingly sad that anyone still watches this.  I'm out.

Also, Temporal Grace, Top Hat and Tails and unexpected friend mysteriously appearing is just kicking your audience in the junk.  Stop doing that.  I swear to God, Rory is the only reason to watch anymore.

RORY.

PS - What a fucking waste of a really hot actresses.  Hi, I'm your friend you've never ever met, whoops, I died, kinda.  Hotness vanishes.  Another Kick Swiftly In The Junk.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 29, 2011, 08:24:27 AM
The problem with time travel as a plot device is the same problem with magic. Unless some worldbuilding is done so there are rules, it's almost impossible for any writer to avoid using it as a way to get out of a narrative dilemma and thus to void out any drama at all. Drama is about choices, and choices aren't dramatic unless there are consequences either way a character leaps. If a character can always choose an action that has no consequences, or can always escape consequences by just cancelling out the action later, it robs a story of any energy.

I think timey-wimey can work in Who if there's some careful world-building attention given to it. Post-The Big Bang would have been a good time to begin doing that--the Doctor could have said, "Well, there are no more Time Lords and the universe just got recreated, so I'm not really terribly sure how time works any longer. Let's find out!"  Or even this episode could have been that--the Doctor could have confessed to Rory and Amy that the reason he can't find Melody is that he's not sure how time works anymore, and also that the Silence are buggering around with homemade Tardis consoles, which is an urgent problem, but it got sidetracked on the Melody Pond assassin plot.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on August 29, 2011, 10:21:00 AM
the time travel aspect is there to set up episodes in interesting places.

This. This is what the old Who excelled at. Time travel was just an excuse to set episodes in really interesting places. One minute you're in Victorian England, the next some weird ass pleasure planet, the next you're in a colony star ship being attacked by aliens dressed in spray-painted bubble wrap. There was very little timey-wimey let's rewrite the universe and oh by the way I TOTALLY foresaw this situation and put a thingamabob in the cabinet over there so that you lose. There didn't need to be. That kind of thing can work once maybe every two or three seasons. When it's every fucking episode and it's consistently nonsensical (like the Pandora's Box setup or the goddamn believing the Doctor back into existence thing) you get stories that bop you over the head repeatedly with STUPID.

I can be entertained by stupid, but Doctor Who is not about being STUPID. Despite the overall silliness of the Tom Baker episodes, it was never stupid, smug or condescending. Moffat seems to be constantly rubbing his balls in my face and saying "LOOK HOW CLEVER ARE MY BALLS!"


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Talpidae on August 29, 2011, 12:20:08 PM
Gimmick Sig.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on September 03, 2011, 03:10:05 PM
One sentence reviews:
Let's Kill Hitler: Two halves of potentially interesting episodes mashed together (Hitler vs Time-cop mecha/River Song origin story) which came together to far less than the sum of their parts.

Night Terrors: Like 'Fear Her' except not terrible.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on September 03, 2011, 07:19:00 PM
One sentence reviews:
Let's Kill Hitler: Two halves of potentially interesting episodes mashed together (Hitler vs Time-cop mecha/River Song origin story) which came together to far less than the sum of their parts.

Night Terrors: Like 'Fear Her' except not terrible.

I agree. Night Terrors was fun, with spooky moments, it made sense more or less, even the actors seemed to be having a good time.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on September 04, 2011, 07:46:00 AM
Muuuuch better. See what happens when River Song's not involved? Everyone has fun. For a clearly exceedingly low budget episode, they got some really good visuals going. Proper horror cinematography helped.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 05, 2011, 01:55:04 PM
I fell asleep near the end of Night Terrors and had to rewind it and watch the end again. Some spooky moments were set up, a nice twist on the monsters in the closet story but ultimately felt kind of throwaway.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Talpidae on September 05, 2011, 01:56:06 PM
It was a rewrite of 'Fear Her'.

And not as good.

It's pretty obvious that the budget and time pressures are just gouging even good writers.  This show badly needs someone in charge who knows what the fuck they're doing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 06, 2011, 08:12:19 AM
I thought it was ok, nothing great. Some nice bits here and there.

Still not sure what the haters have in mind as the gold standard for Who.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on September 06, 2011, 11:10:22 AM
whereas I used to be glued to the screen.  This season I find myself tabbed out just listening while I surf.  This episode was no different. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 06, 2011, 11:25:05 AM
Still not sure what the haters have in mind as the gold standard for Who.

David Tennant's first season (so reboot Season 2) and Tom Baker's days.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on September 06, 2011, 11:42:00 AM
Fun episode, though definitely a throwaway. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, though. What I found interesting was the giant creepy walking dolls were actually played a little silly. I mean, they weren't laughable, just a little goofy. They were indeed scary in other scenes though, so it felt like a choice.

Loved the exchange between Amy and Rory....
Rory: This is weird!
Amy: Yeh, says the time-travelling nurse!

It's those little self-aware moments that I groove on. (The big self-aware moments though, I can do without.)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on September 06, 2011, 12:19:48 PM
Amy: "I have just been turned into a wooden dolly!". Bless.

The bit where Derek Jacobi takes out his watch and Martha's all "waitaminute" was television gold for me, and that's even despite the fact that we all knew what was coming. It worked because we'd seen the Doctor hide his true nature away in a pocket watch in a previous episode, and if he can do it then why can't other time lords - even (dramatic music) evil ones?

It was part of an arc that made sense in the context of the Doctor Who world, which actually led somewhere - to a villain who seemed like a genuine threat because he's presumably just as smart as the Doctor. It also tugged at the heartstrings a bit because it turns out the Doctor isn't alone after all, but the other Time Lord is evil so he's, in a way, more alone than ever!! Oh no!!

Then again, failing to tell Rose he loved her at the end of Season Two was pretty sad too.

But in the current season, I can't say I really care about the Doctor's relationship with River Song, or Amy's relationship with her. I'd like to but it's just so convoluted and feels fake.

I like Amy and Rory as a couple, and I've a nasty feeling that River will turn out to be Rory's killer, not the Doctor's (possibly forshadowed in that scene when Amy is telling her baby that the most wonderful man in the galaxy is coming to rescue them and his name is D..D..wait for it ..Daddy..).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 07, 2011, 12:10:48 PM
Well, we've already been around the block on this, but about half of Tom Baker's run is pretty crap, when his performance started to run away with the show and JNT started driving everything else into the ground.

Tennant's first season I'd agree had pound-for-pound the highest quality of individual episodes. I wasn't overwhelmed by The Idiot's Lantern, I thought Impossible Planet/Satan Pit should probably have been a single episode, Fear Her is pretty crap, and the Rose Tyler-loves-the-Doctor companion plot got a bit irritating at times.

I'm just not seeing how Moffat nuWho is so dramatically different from this that it warrants viewing it as utter worthless crap or whatever invective in that ballpark seems necessary.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 07, 2011, 02:28:15 PM
Stories which are logically inconsistent even within the silly structure of the Doctor Who universe. Stories whose resolutions MAKE NO GODDAMN SENSE or use some kind of Deus Ex Machina to get the Doctor out of an impossible situation (crack in time wiping out the weeping angels is a good example of that).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 07, 2011, 02:52:19 PM
The Who universe isn't quite as shoddy in world-building terms as Star Trek in its many incarnations, but it's pretty close. Just sticking with old Who and leaving out Paul McGann, there's a shitfuck of stuff that doesn't add up at all and about a zillion and one deus ex machina. RTD nuWho doesn't hold up too much better, what with the Daleks having escaped the inescapable Time War four or five times, the Time Lords once; the Reapers appearing just once in response to a paradox and never appearing again or being mentioned again; etc.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 07, 2011, 03:03:55 PM
 :facepalm:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 08, 2011, 12:26:25 PM
Hey, I understand nerd rage when you feel you have a clearly better idea about what to do with a particular universe, character or show that has a lot of potential. There is a totally better set of Star Wars prequels I have in my mind, and I know exactly what should have happened in the Matrix sequel and I am totally willing to bore the shit out of someone unwise enough to set me off about either. And with Who, if John Nathan Turner were still alive today, I'd be perfectly happy if the Iranian clergy declared a fatwa against him; Matthew Jacobs should be kicked in the nuts for the script to the McGann Who movie . I'm really just not seeing it with Moffat's Who. There's stuff I don't like (both characterization and plotting), stuff I like a lot, and stuff I'm indifferent to. Doesn't trigger nerdragery in me at all, though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 08, 2011, 01:05:46 PM
We've done this.  Countless times.  We've pointed out what's wrong with Moffat.  It's abundantly clear.  It's nothing to DO with Canon or the series, or the authenticity either.  It now transcends that.

It's about almost every single episode having no logical consistency whatsoever and always involves 'magic fairy dust' to make everything right.

Moffat has, on every occasion, stated categorically that he writes Dr Who as a Fairy Tale.

This is fundamentally wrong on every level.

You don't mind it.  That's fine.  I do.  That's also fine.  You watch it.  That's cool.  I don't.  That's fine.

Let's not do this shit ever again please.  It's really silly watching you fail to grasp it every time.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Soln on September 08, 2011, 01:57:09 PM
Moffat has, on every occasion, stated categorically that he writes Dr Who as a Fairy Tale.

Agree with everything you've said. 

For me, it's less fairy tale and more broadway musical or pantomine.  All the over-the-top faces, screaming, plot twists involving gender/family/relationships.  Pretty stock musical hall stuff.   And awful.  Just awful.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 08, 2011, 02:25:35 PM
Also, he's a very bad leader.  It is a FACT that the series is over budget, has fired people and can't even get a series out on time under his leadership.

The Christmas episode this year will be available in Easter, unless they shovel more money in.

He's just not good for the show.  Sorry.  Them's the facts.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 08, 2011, 03:17:54 PM
What I don't grasp is why you continue to follow the minute behind-the-scenes details and actual episodes of a series that apparently makes you feel like you're passing a kidney stone. It's like watching a medieval pilgrim climb stone steps on his knees while beating himself bloody with a cat-o-nine tails.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 08, 2011, 03:21:15 PM
Um, I don't.  I live in the UK, have a certain group of friends and work in geekery.  You can't really avoid it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 08, 2011, 06:19:10 PM
I am a serious geek, hang with and read geek sites, but honestly I can avoid the details of shows that I actively disdain and think are beyond salvation. Now mind you I'm feeling really pissed about DC Comics, so there are motes in my eyes, but even there I try pretty hard to be clear about what's good and appreciating it as such.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on September 09, 2011, 09:40:21 AM
I think you underestimate the unique position Doctor Who holds in Britain. Almost everyone below and above a certain age grew up with it, so everyone has an opinion. Its not one of many interchangeable products like the US geeky thing of the day.

Or so I'm told, maybe they lied to me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on September 09, 2011, 10:23:29 AM
That makes sense. I can't think of any American television shows aside from a few afternoon soap operas that are old enough that their audience actually spans generations.  I wonder though. Is the current show that so offends Ironwood a result of evolution or is it just an aberration that might be fixed next time they get a new showrunner?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 09, 2011, 10:26:48 AM
Well, I'd say an it might get fixed, but this is kinda the route that Colin Bakers Dr went down.

That stopped it getting made for quite some time.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on September 10, 2011, 04:57:33 PM
Going from general meta-series commentary to individual episodes, today's really went to show that when you stop trying to make fucking EPIC moments solves with fairy dust and plot twists the characters and actors can carry the show wonderfully. This one was definitely worth watching.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on September 11, 2011, 08:56:59 PM
Makeup on Amy was amazing. Clearly a much bigger budget in general for this episode, but the makeup/prosthetics work really needs to be given huge kudos.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on September 12, 2011, 12:52:29 AM
With all the bad stuff happening under Moffat, the charaterisations are usually spot on. Episodes that play that into the foreground are really fun to watch. So was this one.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on September 18, 2011, 09:01:17 PM
God Complex:

ok, a bit dull and predictable, but I do like the setup that the


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on September 19, 2011, 01:11:37 AM
What the fuck was the Doctor droning on about?

Rose Tyler - alive (in a parallel diimension, but still)
Jack Harkness - alive (and immortal to boot)
Mickey Smith - alive (and happy with Martha)
Martha Jones - alive (and happy with Mickey)
Donna Noble - alive (and not remembering a thing, but shes still not worse off than before)

He makes it sound like all his companions drop dead left and right when they travel with him. Of course, they tend to get a taste of the adventurous life and usually won't settle down in a suburb with children. But I think the writers mistook the Doctor for Jack Harkness for a moment there, the man who REALLY kills everybody he works with sooner or later.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 19, 2011, 11:30:34 AM
I think the thing they're really referencing is not the companions but the redshirt count. And that's pretty fair not just for nuWho but old Who. Think of every base defense episode across seven Doctors--half the people involved or more end up dead, many of them after the Doctor has joined the defense. Sometimes because of stuff the Doctor does. In a few cases because he pretty much relies on them to sacrifice themselves. Rita is really who the Doctor is talking about--he saves his companions but he has the blood of lots and lots and lots of Ritas on his hands from his perspective, because he believes he ought to be able to save them. It's why he gets so angry or disgusted even in old Who when someone dies who shouldn't have died, the way he sees it. That's the "god complex"--his enduring feeling that he should be able to save people who he doesn't want to die. nuWho hit this theme hard and really well in "The Doctor Dances". You could argue that the Doctor shouldn't feel so bad because he saves lots of people he's never met or sees from all sorts of evil--but the Doctor seems to care more about the people he gets to know than about the big abstract "good" he may be doing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 19, 2011, 11:33:32 AM
By the way, anybody who knows the old show who wants a big big big spoiler might take a gander at the IMDB credits for the final episode of this season. If you saw a resemblance between a key scene in "The God Complex" and an old Who episode scene between the Doctor and a companion, you should give yourself a big nerd point.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on September 19, 2011, 01:45:01 PM
By the way, anybody who knows the old show who wants a big big big spoiler might take a gander at the IMDB credits for the final episode of this season. If you saw a resemblance between a key scene in "The God Complex" and an old Who episode scene between the Doctor and a companion, you should give yourself a big nerd point.

Well one name does stand out in that list (possibly two, not sure about the second one though). As for a key scene, the only thing that crossed my mind was


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 19, 2011, 06:14:11 PM
Really do not read if you still care about this season.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: raydeen on September 20, 2011, 04:57:41 AM
Really do not read if you still care about this season.


Damn I was not thinking of that scene. Good call. That is one of my favorite episodes too.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 20, 2011, 08:23:02 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on September 20, 2011, 03:20:18 PM
I've managed to find someone who dislikes Moffat more than Ironwood does: http://cashpeters.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/doctor-who-out-of-time-and-past-its-prime/

 :-)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 20, 2011, 03:51:50 PM
Article had some excellent points and some that were simply not right.  (I loved Coupling for example.  It is, in fact, Genius.)

But it does capture my general feelings and, apparently, the feelings of a fair few.  Currently a big strumash over here about falling ratings.  It's getting kinda like McCoy all over again in the papers.  That seems telling to me.

But I didn't watch the last one and I doubt I'll bother anymore.  I'm 'over it' if you will.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on September 20, 2011, 08:25:37 PM
What a load of insufferable solipsistic twaddle.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on September 21, 2011, 02:10:19 AM
The Curse of Fenric....woooo   $25 really poorly spent...  :why_so_serious:




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 21, 2011, 01:43:03 PM
I thought it was one of the few good McCoy episodes. Gave you a sense of what he might have done with the role if there had been a better producer and more support from BBC.

Further on that spoiler, the picture of a chess-playing Norse/Viking from the ComicCon trailer that everyone is looking at again...has an eyepatch. Identical to Kovarian's, in fact.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: adjunct on September 21, 2011, 08:01:29 PM
I've managed to find someone who dislikes Moffat more than Ironwood does: http://cashpeters.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/doctor-who-out-of-time-and-past-its-prime/

 :-)

Dude needs therapy. Plus he hated 'Coupling'. I dislike him and pity him both.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 21, 2011, 09:01:58 PM
I like the new Sherlock also. Quite a bit. I assume that people who think Moffat is a baby-raper who makes George Lucas look like Jesus don't care for that either?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: adjunct on September 21, 2011, 10:30:31 PM
I like the new Sherlock also. Quite a bit. I assume that people who think Moffat is a baby-raper who makes George Lucas look like Jesus don't care for that either?

I enjoyed the first series and am looking forward to the next.

Someones at CBS seemed to enjoy it as well. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/cbs-investigating-sherlock-holmes-mommy-234792)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 22, 2011, 01:59:42 AM
Sherlock is

A - Mostly Gatiss.

And

B - A fucking rewrite of the Sherlock Holmes Stories.

Stop reaching so hard.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 22, 2011, 05:22:38 AM
It's not really the stories that make it work, though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 22, 2011, 05:58:15 AM
Really ?

I think it's pretty much 50% story and 50% the excellent actors leading it.

But my views on Sherlock are a matter of public record.  In the Sherlock Thread.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 29, 2011, 03:23:57 AM
It begins. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/28/doctor-who-confidential-axed)

And for the inevitable jokers, I came across this while idly reading the Guardian.  It wasn't on my shrine or anything.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 29, 2011, 06:48:52 AM
Ok by me: it sucks anyway.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ruvaldt on September 29, 2011, 11:27:46 AM
After reading that I'm just amused there was a sitcom called Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Slyfeind on September 29, 2011, 01:12:51 PM
After reading that I'm just amused there was a sitcom called Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps.

I'm kinda gagging in my mind at the idea of eating crisps while drinking lager.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on September 29, 2011, 01:22:46 PM
Weird Brits.

Then again I'm not entirely sure how different crisps are from potato chips.  They don't go as well as peanuts or pretzels but they work in a pinch.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mattemeo on September 29, 2011, 07:39:55 PM
Weird Brits.

Then again I'm not entirely sure how different crisps are from potato chips.

Crisps are exactly the same thing as potato chips. And they go with a pint of lager perfectly fine. Salty, savoury snacks washed down with cold fizzyness. Doesn't work so much with any other type of beer, though.
That said, I've stopped eating crisps and avoid drinking lager unless I have absolutely no alternative.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 30, 2011, 02:33:45 AM
The show was also funny at points, in a strange way.

It wasn't really aimed at my demographic, however.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on September 30, 2011, 05:51:52 AM
It had a decent period as simple, crude humour with quirky bits. The musical episode recapping when the cast first met was pretty fantastic. It probably should have ended about 5 years ago though, frankly I'm not seeing any problems with what got axed.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tale on October 01, 2011, 06:55:20 AM
Cybermen defeated by love was the lamest episode I've ever seen. So thin.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on October 01, 2011, 06:09:14 PM
Well, I was wrong.

And this was nicely done: http://youtu.be/_StkJACu3lE


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 02, 2011, 06:29:06 PM
Thought they could have worked someone else into that scene, but it was quite moving.

I actually liked the season ender, really. There's a nice twist to the status quo that maybe sets up some new story ideas/themes.

I am wondering somewhat if we're really meant to think the Doctor lived 200 years or so in *his* timeline  in between dropping Amy and Rory off and showing up at Lake Silencio.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on October 02, 2011, 09:01:29 PM
Well, I was wrong.

And this was nicely done: http://youtu.be/_StkJACu3lE




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on October 03, 2011, 01:07:03 PM
I thought the last four episodes were pretty good, from the Girl Who Waited all the way up to the finale... right up until the final goddamn scene.


As usual, the character moments were fantastic, and I liked the way the Doctor was companion-shopping on Rita in the hotel episode. I continue to feel the creators really don't like the Doctor and so do their best to tear down the very idea of the gallivanting adventurer through time and space by turning it into some dark "I get everyone killed" thing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 03, 2011, 07:19:25 PM
But...



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on October 04, 2011, 06:08:16 AM
Something clicked at the beginning of this last one and I spent most of the episode expecting the question. I feel it just wasn't as clever as the writers thought it would be.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 04, 2011, 09:31:41 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on October 04, 2011, 10:19:49 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Kirth on October 04, 2011, 12:49:50 PM



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on October 04, 2011, 10:38:33 PM

As much as I like the actors and what they've done with what they've been given, I'm getting a distinct Lost/post Cain BSG vibe from the show. Nothing about the Silence makes any sense. At least we have an idea who sabotaged the TARDIS (a brain washed River, or there was an alien in there with her, which I doubt), but who in the world would risk destroying the entire universe just to kill the doctor? It makes no sense. I still don't understand why the Daleks were in that alliance, since they tried to destroy reality awhile back.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 05, 2011, 10:01:26 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 05, 2011, 10:12:29 AM
Balls is right.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ard on October 05, 2011, 11:46:09 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Kitsune on October 05, 2011, 11:55:26 AM
200ish years.  The nature of the doctor makes it pretty impossible to properly portray the timing issues on TV; the past doctors won't drop in on you because they don't know you, and the future doctors haven't been cast yet by BBC so they aren't making an appearance either.  At least in the case of companions he's taking them with him, so it makes the paperwork easier to manage than if he was dropping in and out at random times.  If Matt Smith had dropped in on someone in the Eccleston seasons and been all "Oh hi, I'm the doctor." in answer to their inevitable "Who the fuck are you?", it would have been mildly sweet, but implies foresight that does not exist at BBC.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Kirth on October 05, 2011, 12:22:11 PM
you could consider this cannon  :grin: (nsfw) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r5aMjviWjc




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 05, 2011, 12:25:37 PM

Moffat would just do the handwaving 'Remember the First Rule' bollocks that he regularly puts in to hang a lantern on it and cover his own arse from his utter inept writing.

The Doctor Lies.  Which meant 'I Forgot because I'm a Cunt.'


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 05, 2011, 02:31:56 PM
Look, there is a lot of interesting characterization in all of nuWho that happened around the character being more and more known, being not just one oddball Time Lord on the run from his own people but being the very last representative of the most powerful people in the universe. It was a pretty natural arc of development for the whole series, really: at some point, you can't keep saving Earth from aliens galore and not have that start to give you a reputation. You can't build up a "rogue's gallery" and have them not recognize the Doctor as a serious adversary whenever/wherever they run into him. Where would the fun be in every single group of Daleks or Cybermen having to through the usual 50% of a storyline going, "Who is this guy?" for ever and ever? But as a character arc, it came to a point where it required some kind of resolution. One resolution pretty much destroys the show forever (having the Doctor really become as godlike or omnipotent as his reputation). Another seems arbitrary (just downgrading him to being a no-big-deal schlep again, or having magic handwavium or Superman's amnesia-breath used to make everyone forget him). So I appreciate at least the thinking about the character that's going on, even if the results are uneven.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on October 05, 2011, 03:24:17 PM
There's entirely too much meta going on in Moffat Who. The question, the whole "Doctor winked out of existence and imagined into existence by Amy Pond" and such.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on October 05, 2011, 05:01:02 PM
I do hope the show goes back to showing the Doctor as a meddling stranger who turns up and wins people's trust by being brilliant instead of I AM THE DOCTOR, but I don't know how that fits in with the revelation that the most important question in creation is "Doctor Who?", which I guess is going to be the focus of the next season.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 05, 2011, 06:11:06 PM
"Doctor Who?

Doctor Who?

DOCTOR WHO?"

stfu Jombi.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on November 23, 2011, 10:37:57 AM
48 years old today...

This show first aired 48 YEARS AGO?!  :ye_gods:

 :drill:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on November 27, 2011, 11:21:39 PM
I have had The Wedding of River Song on an external HD I use mainly for work since, well since the Saturday it went up for download.  Can't bring myself to watch it.  Come back Russel T Davies, we miss you!!!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on December 26, 2011, 04:44:35 PM
Ironwood... Whatever you do, don't watch the Christmas special this year. Your head will explode for sure.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tale on December 26, 2011, 06:09:05 PM
I liked it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on December 27, 2011, 12:19:21 AM
As with the entire last 2 seasons I liked half of it. Some things are done well, some things aren't.

What I find odd is that it's so inconsistent in its quality. For instance you get a scene with a really well done set and some good lighting and then Bill Bailey walks on wearing a space suit that's pretty well done apart from the washing machine hoses stuck out of the top and proceeds to display an utter lack of acting talent while in the same scene the guest actress delivers a couple of well-written lines with some impact and skill.

It's so weird. They take utter crap and pure gold and mash them both together and all you get is a mediocre mess with some shiny nuggets sticking out.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on December 27, 2011, 04:28:32 AM
Oh I liked it too. But I don't take Doctor Who as seriously as some and don't object strongly to sentimental twaddle.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on December 27, 2011, 05:07:10 AM
I don't take it seriously, I don't object to sentimentality. I just appreciate quality production, and I think it's a shame that they miss that mark so often when they hit it in many areas at the same time.

Typical BBC - they could be making something very, very good, but the best they ever manage is mediocre.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 27, 2011, 01:46:35 PM
Typical BBC - they could be making something very, very good, but the best they ever manage is mediocre.

I think nuWho, especially the Matt Smith stuff is the Voyager of Dr Who. They're too wound up in the franchise.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on December 29, 2011, 07:16:28 PM
Tailgunner got a raw deal, but I liked it.  A nice simple standalone episode with no kitchen sinks.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on December 30, 2011, 01:26:58 PM
Don't the tail gunners always get a raw deal?  :drill:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on February 22, 2012, 06:32:18 AM
Filming has started (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2012/doctor-who-filming.html) on series 7. The hyperbole in that PR is a bit... hyperbolic, be warned.

Also, "familiar foes as you've never seen them before".. so, Daleks in new colours with new bit on them so the BBC can sell more toys?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on February 22, 2012, 09:25:17 AM
Ronald D, Moore reimagines the cybermen.


...And they have a Plan...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on February 22, 2012, 02:01:23 PM
Quote
Fourteen big, blockbuster-movie episodes - each a brand new epic adventure featuring new monsters and some familiar foes as you've never seen them before.

Does that mean a change of format, ie every episode is a standalone episode? Or it could just be a press officer's way of saying it's going to be great.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on February 23, 2012, 12:58:39 AM
Hard to tell, however I wouldn't be completely surprised if they tried going for 90 minute episodes after their success with Sherlock.

Personally I hated the length of the Sherlock episodes - they simply spread 40-60 mins of content out by padding it with pointless takes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on February 25, 2012, 10:36:40 PM
They need to take this series in another direction.  The Monty Python inflation of the big bads has been ridiculous- to top themselves they'd need to have him fight Satan on his throne next...oh right, they even did that (one of the shittiest episodes of the Tennant era).

A season of mostly standalone, silly British monster episodes would be fine.  Lets leave the tortured philosophizing about what the doctor is alone a little while.  Maybe drop some hints that he'll be fighting himself soon (some future incarnation gone really, really bad). 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on February 26, 2012, 04:28:08 AM
Who are you and what have you done with the Triforcer who never said I word I agreed with ?

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on February 26, 2012, 12:24:30 PM
A season of mostly standalone, silly British monster episodes would be fine.  Lets leave the tortured philosophizing about what the doctor is alone a little while.  Maybe drop some hints that he'll be fighting himself soon (some future incarnation gone really, really bad). 

Well, the Valeyard is still a possibility...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on February 26, 2012, 01:38:30 PM
God, people still talk about that like it wouldn't be the lamest fucking thing ever.

Hey, what if Spider Mans suit was sentient and teamed up with someone else to kill him ???


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on February 26, 2012, 06:06:12 PM
God, people still talk about that like it wouldn't be the lamest fucking thing ever.

Hey, what if Spider Mans suit was sentient and teamed up with someone else to kill him ???

That worked for a while, until they went apeshit with the concept.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on March 22, 2014, 03:00:16 PM
Hello Jenna-Louise!

(http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/1633/jennah.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/jennah.png/)

"Former Emmerdale actor Jenna-Louise Coleman is to join Doctor Who as Matt Smith's new companion – but viewers will have to wait until the show's Christmas special to meet her.

"Coleman will take over from Karen Gillan, who has played Amy Pond in the show for the past two series, in what showrunner Steven Moffat described as "a very, very different way for the Doctor to meet his new friend"."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/mar/21/jenna-louise-coleman-doctor-who


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on March 22, 2014, 03:12:14 PM
I still haven't even watched the 2011 Christmas special. Doctor WHO??????? may have just broke me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on March 24, 2014, 11:53:24 PM
well.. we shall see


I still haven't gotten around to watching River Song's wedding or whatever it was called.  Hope this season.... ahh fuck it, it is what it is.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on March 25, 2014, 02:00:51 AM
I'll miss Centurion Rory. That her favourite Doctor and Companion were "Piper and Tennant" doesn't bode well.

I just can't work up the emotions to care all that much, though. Doctor Who is something I watch out of pure inertia by now, because I did since the first episode of the New Doctor.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on March 26, 2012, 08:45:41 AM
If Jesus were a show-runner for a series that geeks like(d), he'd probably regard it as a relief when it came time to get crucified. We are a very demanding lot.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ubvman on March 27, 2012, 01:54:50 AM
Did the Doctor always have hot babes around as companions or is it a new 2005 series phenomena?
Not that I mind it.  :grin: :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on March 27, 2012, 03:45:51 AM
Always.

However, you need to be aware that 'hot' has changed as society as changed.  I, for one, would still fuck Zoe, but not Bonnie Langford.

YMMV.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on March 27, 2012, 05:59:13 PM
I disagree with the new companion.  DW companions should be British pretty, not pretty (although Torchwood taught me I'm not quite ready for Welsh pretty).  Modeling agency companions ruin the cultural ambience. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on March 28, 2012, 05:02:14 AM
To be fair, that picture may be model pretty, but she's really not all that great.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: DraconianOne on March 28, 2012, 05:35:17 AM
(although Torchwood taught me I'm not quite ready for Welsh pretty).   

Eve Myles is not representative of Welsh pretty, that I can guarantee.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on March 28, 2012, 11:54:42 AM
All you fuckers that don't think Eve Myles is pretty need your heads examined, gap toothed or not.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on March 28, 2012, 08:27:06 PM
Yeah, but you're from Mississippi.  :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on March 29, 2012, 01:11:08 AM
British pretty, not pretty

Did you just manage to get in a racist comment in the Doctor Who thread?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on March 29, 2012, 11:27:59 AM
Yeah, but you're from Mississippi.  :grin:

Tits. Nuff said.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Johny Cee on March 29, 2012, 04:23:33 PM
Saw the promo for next season....  will have a Wild West episode with Ben Browder as a guest star.


Now I can't get out of my head how awesome (in a bizarro-insane way) a Farscape/Dr Who crossover would be.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on March 29, 2012, 08:06:05 PM
I do not get not finding Eve Myles sexy. I think she's totally sexy, Welsh or not.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on April 06, 2012, 11:34:09 AM
DOCTOR Who will turn into a woman when the show marks its 50th anniversary next year, Day & Night has been informed.
The show’s bosses are planning to change the character’s gender after half a century, with Sherlock star Lara Pulver,
31, pictured, being tipped among the front runners for the role.

Insiders say a dramatic twist will see current Time Lord Matt Smith, 29, regenerate into a new female character when next year’s series reaches its dramatic climax.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on April 06, 2012, 01:16:00 PM
You might want to check the date of that announcment.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Der Helm on May 31, 2012, 06:54:30 PM
So... I am catching up a bit... are all Christmas Specials as depressing as the Titanic one.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on May 31, 2012, 10:24:04 PM
No, some are worse.  :drill:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Der Helm on June 02, 2012, 06:37:25 AM
No, some are worse.  :drill:
:ye_gods:

Gonne skip those then.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 28, 2012, 02:51:12 PM
David Warner and Liam Cunningham have been cast to appear in an episode together in the second half of the season.  :heart:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on August 02, 2012, 05:01:12 AM
The BBC have released a trailer for the next season: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrEUBl2pacU


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on August 02, 2012, 06:26:14 PM
I see we'll be pandering to American audiences again this season.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 03, 2012, 04:32:00 AM
It's where the money is.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on August 29, 2012, 06:24:32 PM
Buzz on Asylum of the Daleks is very high- it is being compared to the series 1 Dalek episode (the only non-shitty Dalek episode in the revived series so far).  Can't wait for Saturday. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 01, 2012, 02:38:19 PM
Well, it wasn't.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on September 01, 2012, 06:05:42 PM
I thought Asylum of the Daleks had some nice creepy moments.  There were a few scenes where the Daleks stopped being pathetic and actually became menacing again.

I liked the Rory and Amy story awww.

The plot made no sense but one point in particular


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 01, 2012, 09:17:06 PM
Look, there is no easy continuity-nerd way to make sense of the Parliament of Daleks and all that. The fact that an unimaginative race of Stalinist-Nazi robots have come up with creative ways to survive being time-locked and all that should eventually trigger a major crisis in the Doctor if  they want to take it all seriously. Imagine if you had to blow up Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, William Butler Yeats, Marilyn Monroe and the Dalai Lama in order to be sure that Robo-Hitler would never again menace mankind and then in twenty years were told by President Romney that you had to go kill Robo-Hitler again and this time use a gun that fired living baby flesh at him. You might be a bit sad, eh?

So much as I might like the series to allow the Doctor to actually WIN AND KILL THE FUCKING DALEKS and come up with something else, ok, they're not going to do that. If they're not going to do that, this episode is about the best you could ask for. I thought it was pretty good, all things considered, given that I honestly would have at least one extra orgasm in my miserable middle-aged body before dying  if I thought "There will never be a Dalek episode again because they're as fucking played out as the Horta or something like that."

Cue Ironwood's jihad against Moffat, I suppose. Plot holes, whatever. Tell me that's not better than 90% of any episode of this series featuring Daleks ever and I'll tell you that you're full of shit and should go watch whatever ass-laden videotape the BBC has managed to scratch out of their careless asses to prove it. The only things marginally more tolerable featuring these particular adversaries is "Dalek" (fucking great), "Remembrance of the Daleks" (not too bad), "Dalek Invasion of Earth" (oh, let's be nice to the old fuckers who used to make our television shows when we were wee folk and not such middle-aged meanies as we are now). And after that the abyss and we're just arguing about which circle of hell we're in. This episode felt to me like a rather comely mutant that managed to crawl out of the pit and gesture feebly at the sky above--rather thematically apt, eh wot?




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on September 01, 2012, 09:30:22 PM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 01, 2012, 09:59:24 PM
You know, she would have made a great companion....like Dalek + K-9 + hot woman. nerdgasm


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on September 01, 2012, 10:15:40 PM
She just might.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 02, 2012, 12:00:50 PM
Indeed.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: cironian on September 03, 2012, 09:21:50 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on September 04, 2012, 12:43:29 AM
I can only presume she was the project of some Asylum Daleks, because the regular Dalek supremacists wouldn't do that in my mind.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ubvman on September 04, 2012, 01:19:43 AM
Consistency is nice but continuity porn madness is the bane of long running shows (and comics - ask Spider-Man.)



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on September 04, 2012, 04:25:32 AM
OK, wasn't bad. As with all of the new Doctor Who's it had ups and downs.

Rory is still the best thing in it and the Rory/Amy interaction isn't bad. The chemistry between them isn't 100% convincing and mostly their storyline is simple emotional button pushing... but it does that pretty well.

The Daleks are just there to sell Dalek toys. They're never going away, the BBC makes a metric fuckton off of those sales. Plot holes and inconsistencies are ubiquitous and irrelevant. If they're going to really bother you then you probably shouldn't watch this series tbh.

I still get slightly annoyed with the BBC's production values. I mean they clearly spent a LOT of money on this episode and yet it still looks like ~50% of the sets are made out of old condoms and cardboard tubes. They really need to hire some good lighting engineers too. Just throwing in multiple lights with fluorescent coloured gels on them doesn't make it sci-fi, it makes it fucking dated and cheap looking.

I'd give that episode a 7/10. Maybe a -1 for actually having anyone say "Doctor Who" repeatedly. That's just wrong. He's just The Doctor. Get it right Moffatt. Twat. But then a +1 for Oswin being hot.

Oh and has there ever been any mention before of
Or was that just a random plot device?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 04, 2012, 06:02:03 AM

I'd give that episode a 7/10. Maybe a -1 for actually having anyone say "Doctor Who" repeatedly. That's just wrong. He's just The Doctor. Get it right Moffatt. Twat. But then a +1 for Oswin being hot.


But you know why that was.  Moffat already did that with his blue fat chap and everyone hmmed and hawwed and tutted about it, so he thought he'd do a nice FUCK YOU to his detractors by doing it longer and louder and, well, more obnoxious.

He's really not a very balanced guy.


Also, you can all vent all over Oswin when she comes back.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 04, 2012, 06:25:17 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on September 08, 2012, 09:03:25 PM
I liked episode 2, but one thing bothered me...



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Malakili on September 08, 2012, 09:09:41 PM
I liked episode 2, but one thing bothered me...


Yes, this jumped out at me as well.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 08, 2012, 09:37:13 PM
I'm gonna have to think on it but...



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on September 08, 2012, 10:20:35 PM
I'm gonna have to think on it but...




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on September 09, 2012, 02:29:03 PM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on September 09, 2012, 02:52:22 PM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 09, 2012, 04:44:36 PM
Ah, just rewatched and realized I missed that this was Earth in the 23rd Century that was firing the rockets. I thought it was just the Indian branch of UNIT in the 21st Century.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 10, 2012, 11:27:48 AM
Just watched Asylum this weekend. Well, it wasn't the worst thing they've ever put out. The whole "TWIST!" was telegraphed a mile away and was almost clever. Bonus points for Oswin being so goddamn hot.

Maybe a -1 for actually having anyone say "Doctor Who" repeatedly. That's just wrong. He's just The Doctor. Get it right Moffatt. Twat.

This however is really getting on my tits. It wasn't clever when he did it last season, it's even less clever now. I liked it better when the Doctor was just randomly bumping into Daleks in the timeline, instead of trying to put a linear story together about Dalek plots that go over multiple seasons.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on September 11, 2012, 06:48:46 PM
I liked episode 2, but one thing bothered me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzmnPs64K74&feature=context-cha
(NWS due to music).

The Doctor is less pacifistic than he pretends to be.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: MahrinSkel on September 11, 2012, 08:14:54 PM
And generally, towards the end of an incarnation, when he's realized how badly having companions tends to work out for *them*, he has an episode or two where he's just a dick in an era of history where making sure the right people die is what he's supposed to do.  It's early in his incarnations when he's pacifistic and tries to make sure everyone gets a happy ending.

--Dave


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 11, 2012, 09:32:47 PM
I don't think that works if you mean old Who as well as nuWho.

1st Doctor: very big dick at the beginning, slightly more like the guy we know at the end.
2nd Doctor: pretty nice guy throughout.
3rd Doctor: bigger dick early, has a Garden of Gethsemane moment in "Planet of Spiders", pays his price
4th Doctor: moments of dickish weirdness scattered throughout, dick quotient rises near the end mostly because the actor is feeling more like a dick rather than the character being meant to be so
5th Doctor: making up for being a dick, dies trying to not be a dick to anyone, just to save a companion
6th Doctor: let's not talk about this, but you know, less of a dick at the end, though not by much
7th Doctor: colder and more manipulative over time--so he fits the generalization
8th Doctor: who knows
9th Doctor: heartsick and f'ed up, but gets his happy ending towards the end of his run rather than the beginning (Doctor Dances)
10th Doctor: yes--he's the guy for whom this description was written--that's his character arc, progressing towards more and more arrogance and then a big fall before the end
11th Doctor: not sure what the total arc is yet


Actually, I agree with some fan sites--the 11th Doctor's current season looks like it *does* have a story: what happens when the Doctor isn't (in)famous anymore? And like others, I have a sneaking suspicion that this will turn out to be a bad thing, not a good thing.

Maybe we'll even get a "River Song was lying all along, and trying to get the Doctor to believe that he's the problem on behalf of some enemy"--which could save the character from some of her Mary Sueism.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: MahrinSkel on September 11, 2012, 09:37:29 PM
It's been a long time since Old Who, and I wasn't the most regular watcher, so I concede that my memories of those old stories may have been re-ordered to match up with the arc of the 10th Doctor.

--Dave


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on September 12, 2012, 11:12:38 AM
This was cold of the doctor and, in contrast to the examples in the video, not in the heat of the moment. Usually he is no hypocrite who is completely fine with slaughtering bad people by manipulating circumstances so that they die without him getting his hands dirty. That way lies the Valeyard. Maybe that is the point though, so I won't judge yet.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on September 12, 2012, 01:41:26 PM
The show didn't acknowledge that the Doctor's behaviour was out of character and I doubt it will although we'll see. In the past, when he's done "bad things", it's been a big deal. He sent Rose to teach half-human Doctor how to behave after that Doctor killed Daleks, who are meant the be the most evilest things ever.

But I don't mind because I thought it had lots of enjoyable silliness, eg
  • Rory's Dad
  • Amy pretending to be a Queen
  • That big game hunter


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on September 12, 2012, 01:50:24 PM
The show didn't acknowledge that the Doctor's behaviour was out of character and I doubt it will although we'll see. In the past, when he's done "bad things", it's been a big deal. He sent Rose to teach half-human Doctor how to behave after that Doctor killed Daleks, who are meant the be the most evilest things ever.

But I don't mind because I thought it had lots of enjoyable silliness, eg
  • Rory's Dad
  • Amy pretending to be a Queen
  • That big game hunter

Although I wasn't crazy about this episode, these are EXACTLY the bits that I enjoyed the most.  I kind of like this doctor and I'm not totally upset that the doctor might get a bit darker in the future, if that's the plan.  I think change is good in this case.  Wouldn't want the doctor to get stale like he has from time to time in the past.   


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on September 13, 2012, 02:55:15 AM
But I don't mind because I thought it had lots of enjoyable silliness, eg
  • Rory's Dad
  • Amy pretending to be a Queen
  • That big game hunter

Agreed. Mark Williams (Rory's dad) was great, although I did keep expecting him to shout "IN AN OLE! WITH A OWL! (http://youtu.be/q_a1wxqloEs)"...


And I'm going to harp on about this because it's really pissing me off - enough with the fucking coloured lighting! They are ruining the sets with this retarded amateurish overuse of blue, green and pink lights. Fuck you BBC, hire an experienced lighting engineer from the film industry, not some fucking media studies graduate from a tech college.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on September 13, 2012, 03:07:09 AM
According to the Wiki:

Quote
The Fourth Doctor murdered Mehendri Solon by injecting cyanide gas into his laboratory. (DW: The Brain of Morbius)

Quote
The Doctor gives Solon five minutes to disconnect the brain as he goes and checks on Sarah. However, Solon locks them in the secret laboratory instead and begins to repair Morbius. Using materials from the secret laboratory, the Doctor makes cyanogen gas, which he then pipes through a vent that leads to the operating room above.
Solon has finished the operation, but the gas chokes him and he dies.

Once before in 10 regenerations. And even then he gave an ultimatum beforehand. I call the murder in the last episode highly unlike him.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 13, 2012, 04:53:45 AM
He gave Solon every chance.  That bastard was MENTAL.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on September 15, 2012, 03:37:09 PM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 15, 2012, 09:55:06 PM
Ok, so



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tale on September 29, 2012, 03:03:06 AM
Advance spoiler from the Dr Who twitter account:



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 30, 2012, 07:16:57 PM
I thought that was a pretty bad episode, and I've liked the others this season. I had a higher resistance to Moffat's tropes than some but they're becoming really obnoxious and a serious impediment to good storytelling. He's just fucking lucky that he has about the best actor to play the main character in the entire history of the show or things would be much worse.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on September 30, 2012, 10:00:42 PM
I really liked Eccleston, I wish he would have done another season or two.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 01, 2012, 03:21:55 AM
Yeah, but he had to go off and be fucking awful in GI Joe.  Priorities, man.

 :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on October 01, 2012, 05:08:17 PM
Tennant was still better.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tale on October 01, 2012, 10:57:34 PM
I can't get past the increasing, boring, self-celebratory campness. Potentially exciting plot points are ever more layered in waffle about how marvellous the Doctor and Britishness are.

I'd love an actual sci-fi story, like those delivered in the Rose Tyler and Martha Jones eras despite the pantomime stuff.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on October 02, 2012, 01:59:57 AM
Yeah this episode was shite. The story made no sense, was full of loose ends and had no impact. The previous episodes in this series were far better, not having been written by Steven "Shitehawk" Moffat.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ubvman on October 02, 2012, 05:11:12 AM
Yeah this episode was shite. The story made no sense, was full of loose ends and had no impact. The previous episodes in this series were far better, not having been written by Steven "Shitehawk" Moffat.


I didn't hate it that much but I found it a bit silly. The time travel "rules" do not seem to have been well thought out and everyone seems to have completely lost their minds in the end.





Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on October 02, 2012, 05:40:29 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on October 02, 2012, 07:34:54 AM
The Eccleson Doctor pretty much killed someone in the second episode by transporting Cassandra back to the room after she beamed out, but without her flunkies that were moisturizing her, then basically sat there and watched as she shriveled up and popped. "Doctor Who?" was a throwaway gag line in the first episode as well, but was not used again.

And Eccleson rocked as the Doctor. I really wish he had done another season.

I have to admit I haven't watched this doctor at all. I know its petty but I cannot get past how this guy looks and the big floppy hairstyle.

Oh and as for the Daleks I remember watching "Dalek" and going "Holy shit. No wonder the Doctor is shit scared of this thing" It was literally like a tank. Sadly no episode since has captured the sheer menace of that episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sky on October 02, 2012, 09:22:13 AM
I don't really post in here because I like the new Doctor (my second favorite after the 1st) and didn't like the last two, so I'm in the minority (hated Eccleston completely). But yeah, that was a pretty throwaway ending to the Ponds, who I really enjoyed. And the episode started out really well, I like the statue enemies quite a bit, so creepy. But then they just kind of threw away the opening plot entirely and went off the rails.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Numtini on October 02, 2012, 10:48:22 AM
I'm about a season behind. With Davies and Tenant, this was at the top of our queue, but we generally find the series unwatchable since Moffat took over and the current cast arrived. Loathed the Ponds, hate River Song and not big on Matt Smith. Mostly though, it's the writing. There have been some outstanding standalone episodes, but overall I find the long plot arcs convoluted and overblown, but at the same time trivial and dull. I'll be interested in the next season to see if losing the Ponds increases our interest.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 02, 2012, 11:14:23 AM
Matt Smith has been one of the best Dr's to date.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: cironian on October 02, 2012, 05:07:54 PM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 02, 2012, 08:48:06 PM
I honestly think Smith has the best take on the character in just about ever, and he's had a mostly good group of characters to work with. (River Song had potential but it's gone very badly south). But he's had uneven scripts. This season has actually been quite lovely until this one which was really just crap.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ubvman on October 02, 2012, 11:13:36 PM
Matt Smith has been one of the best Dr's to date.

I would rate the post 2005 Drs.: Tennant > Smith > Eccleston.

Eccleston's Doctor was a bit too glum IMHO and I had a hard time deciphering his accent.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on October 03, 2012, 09:39:04 AM

The whole "fixed point in time" thing should be nuked from orbit. If a person is in a fixed point in time, that means his/her birth was fixed, and his/her parents, and their parents, etc. That makes the past pretty static, yes? Or maybe I'm just being parochial, given that apparently Elizabeth Warren and I are  blood relatives  :why_so_serious: (part NA on my mom's side and given the amount of red hair on her side probably some Caucasian as well)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 03, 2012, 04:02:09 PM
I buy "fixed point in time" as certain events.  (As in the Mars episode with Tennant near the end of his run.)  I don't quite buy it as something that can happen to time travellers in the course of their travels, that seems to fuck up the whole idea of time travel & the Doctor. I think there are other ways to have handled this--say, that Amy and Rory were sent back into the past in such a way that they are invisible to the Doctor and the Tardis (if Captain Jack can be 'deleted' from time so that he lives almost forever, why not something similar), that the Angels do something to 'poison' Amy and Rory for time travel such that the Doctor can't take them on the Tardis away from 1938 without killing them, etc. The point is that the story shouldn't be so driven by an exotic series of plot contrivances whose main intent is to take Amy and Rory off the board without giving them an unhappy ending--just do that and focus instead on the characters and the situation. Timey-wimey stuff is very very hard to do right, and any time travel story or series that isn't always fundamentally about time travel, using a very hard and explicit set of rules is going to end up sooner or later in the same place that Star Trek TNG ended up with tachyon particle beams and proton generators and baryon projectors and whatever other technobabble was allowed to drive the plot in the worst episodes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on October 03, 2012, 04:24:40 PM

Yah, but if Water of Mars is fixed so are a lot of things. Like the earth existing to that point; and not just existing, but basically having the same people existing throughout time and space to that point. Although that does kind of explain the Doctor's breezy confidence in the face of what could be universal destruction: it can't possibly occur, so he just has to figure out how it was stopped.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on October 04, 2012, 02:31:16 AM
Just saw the finale and man do I wish I hadn't. Emotionally manipulative and stupid at the same time. With plot holes the Statue of Liberty Angel could walk through.

Weren't the Angels supposed to be Aliens that just happened to look like a particular kind of statue (Angelic statues to be exact)? Now they are what? Evil ghosts possessing existing Statues, regardless of form?

And thats just the first thing coming to mind. I don't want to analyze this further or I begin to openly weep. Moffat may be talented in other ways, but he is absolutely poisonous to the Dr Who franchise. The actors work their asses off, but its hard to overcome the limitations of the script.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ubvman on October 04, 2012, 03:02:33 AM

The whole "fixed point in time" thing should be nuked from orbit. If a person is in a fixed point in time, that means his/her birth was fixed, and his/her parents, and their parents, etc. That makes the past pretty static, yes?
...

I don't mind the establishment of certain rigid rules and restrictions on Dr. Who time travel. Without restrictions - absolutely nothing can phaze or affect a crazy man in a time traveling box. No danger or bad outcome cannot be undone if the Doctor wishes it.

That said, if you do establish a rigid rule/restriction to rein your character in, don't F*-ING carelessly break the rules when you've written yourself into a corner. You just don't write yourself into a corner in the first place.

Bad episode, it could have been much better given the importance of that particular episode as the last appearance of the Ponds.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tale on October 04, 2012, 04:04:54 PM
Just saw the finale and man do I wish I hadn't.
Good news: you didn't!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on October 07, 2012, 03:32:30 AM
Slight tangent...

Watched Men In Black 3 last night. Time travel & multiple possible futures story telling handled about a billion times better than Steven Moffat could ever hope to do. I know it's different being a single story with a simple arc as opposed to a long running series but even so, someone should strap Moffat into a chair and do a Clockwork Orange on his eyelids and force him to watch MiB3 several times until he gets why his stories suck cock.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on October 07, 2012, 01:04:50 PM
Matt Smith has been one of the best Dr's to date.

I would rate the post 2005 Drs.: Tennant > Smith > Eccleston.

They've all been great, my only problem with Smith and Tennant is they don't remotely work as characters with the emotional maturity and experience of all the previous incarnations added together. They could have been convincingly presented as 'prequel' doctors.

In fact I have now chosen to assume that because of freaky time shit, timelords experience their 'regenerations' in reverse. They have some factual memory of prior regens (so they remember companions and are intellectually aware and even scared of bad shit that has happened) but they grow as characters and gain experience in the opposite direction.

How can this possibly work? A wizard did it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Numtini on October 07, 2012, 08:33:06 PM
Really? I thought Tenant got the entire "I'm worn down by living too long" down pretty well. Not quite as well as they did with Captain Jack on Torchwood, but definitely above other doctors.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on October 08, 2012, 01:50:22 AM
Just saw the finale and man do I wish I hadn't.
Good news: you didn't!

Oh sorry, let me correct this error.

Just saw the last episode before the winter break and man do I wish I hadn't.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 08, 2012, 07:18:44 AM
Matt Smith has been one of the best Dr's to date.

I would rate the post 2005 Drs.: Tennant > Smith > Eccleston.

They've all been great, my only problem with Smith and Tennant is they don't remotely work as characters with the emotional maturity and experience of all the previous incarnations added together. They could have been convincingly presented as 'prequel' doctors.

In fact I have now chosen to assume that because of freaky time shit, timelords experience their 'regenerations' in reverse. They have some factual memory of prior regens (so they remember companions and are intellectually aware and even scared of bad shit that has happened) but they grow as characters and gain experience in the opposite direction.

How can this possibly work? A wizard did it.


It's long been established that regenerations remix the Doctor's personality to some extent, which actually makes some degree of sense given the degree to which personality derives partly from brain structure, etc. So his arc of character development, if you buy that basic premise, is always going to be somewhat indirect and specific to each regeneration. If you're going to get huffy that he doesn't seem to accumulate maturity and emotional understanding over time, you couldn't possibly accept the progression from Troughton to Pertwee to Baker, who don't have anything remotely like a consistent, singular emotional arc. Davison's Doctor could be seen plausibly as an emotional reaction/growth to the late Baker, I guess, but Colin Baker's Doctor, even IF the characterization had worked out better, doesn't seem at all like a person who had just given his life to save a companion. You can't make the Doctor out to have a linear progression of experience and maturity over time at any point in the character's existence, which I think is for the better.

*All* of the nuWho actors have done a pretty job, imho, at portraying the Doctor as a 'old' being with a lot of accumulated knowledge and emotional baggage. In particular, they've done a good job getting across his weariness about his burdens and a sense of PTSD from the Time War. Smith and Tennant generally have done a good job with the old soul in younger body thing generally, though--I honestly don't see how you could possibly think otherwise. The only actor in the history of the show who has played the character as a naif was really Davison. Pertwee's version also seemed in certain ways to have a youthful braggadacio even if he didn't look particularly young.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 08, 2012, 07:40:58 AM
I can't think of any Doctor who didn't do the 'youthful inside' part of the character.  Tom Baker was probably the best at it, with Colin Baker (and arguably McCoy) being Godawful at it.  Even Eccleston managed it by being constantly excited and keen about everything.

Pertwee and the first Doctor were the most interesting, to be honest, because they both looked so damn old and still managed it.

I think if you are looking for maturity and growth, you're looking at the wrong character.  The Doctor just doesn't do that.  Sure, he can be serious, even stately at times, but at heart he's Peter Pan.  He stole a TARDIS because he was bored and never grew up.  


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on October 12, 2012, 12:30:31 PM
This has been making the Facebook rounds today, so I'm sure everyone's seen it.  In case you haven't though:

P.S.:   What happened to The Ponds and Rory's Dad?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XWU6XL9xI4k


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on October 21, 2012, 02:16:56 AM
This has been making the Facebook rounds today, so I'm sure everyone's seen it.  In case you haven't though:

P.S.:   What happened to The Ponds and Rory's Dad?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XWU6XL9xI4k


You know... fuck Stephen Moffat. Fuck him in the goatass.

I was OK with the Ponds getting a sendoff of some sort, though it did get a bit treacly and maudlin. I really loved them as characters. They deserved a helluva lot better deaths/exits than BLINKPUNKBITCHES! But that video... IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE. If they were trapped in a "fixed point in time" until they died, HOW CAN THEIR SON MOVE FORWARD IN TIME!!!!!!?????? If he could leave, why couldn't they? Let's not even get into the idea that if they are moving forward in time and could have a fucking yard, there'd be about 50 billion timey wimey ways to get out of the trap. Or that the Doctor would ever give up trying to find a way to get them back so long as they were alive.

The character bits they've done with the Doctor and the Ponds were really good, but like I've said a billion times before, the stories are complete shit.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on October 21, 2012, 03:56:02 AM
This whole thing is idiotic, no discussion about that. Don't get me started on that "fixed point in time" nonsense, that is retarded beyond comprehension. The only fixed thing was that Amy and Rory had to die in set year at a certain age. They could have done whatever they liked as long as they still returned to (die and) get buried there and then. Time doesn't care about the details, the "Robot doctor death" proved that.

But the grandson didn't move forward in time, he just stayed in his normal timeline and aged until he met his Grandfather. No Timetravel involved.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on October 21, 2012, 01:19:57 PM
This whole thing is idiotic, no discussion about that. Don't get me started on that "fixed point in time" nonsense, that is retarded beyond comprehension. The only fixed thing was that Amy and Rory had to die in set year at a certain age. They could have done whatever they liked as long as they still returned to (die and) get buried there and then. Time doesn't care about the details, the "Robot doctor death" proved that.

But the grandson didn't move forward in time, he just stayed in his normal timeline and aged until he met his Grandfather. No Timetravel involved.

I don't remember there even being a set year...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on October 21, 2012, 01:54:36 PM
You are right, which makes the "problem" even more idiotic.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on October 21, 2012, 07:21:38 PM
"Fixed point in time" works if you want an all-purpose explanation as to why the Doctor can't just go back in time and try again whenever anyone dies or is hurt. It works because the audience instinctively understands that it would ruin the story if he could do that - there could never be any threat, nobody could be in any real danger - so they'll accept any silly maguffin you like and let you get on with telling your story. But you have a problem when these arbitrary rules become a major plot point and viewers are encouraged to think about them in detail.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on October 22, 2012, 02:04:14 AM
Stupid thing is that they had a perfectly good plot device to circumvent this already. The Doctor's Tardis was broken because he stole it and he was unable to control it accurately enough to go back and fix specific mistakes, deaths, events, etc.

I've forgotten how & why they wrote themselves out of that handy explanation.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 22, 2012, 05:36:05 AM
It's never been clear how much the Doctor was telling the truth about his inability to control the Tardis--and in "The Doctor's Wife", the Tardis itself suggests that it's always taken him where he needs to be. Some of Sylvester McCoy's episodes suggested similarly that the Tardis isn't so much broken as much as it only goes where the Doctor is needed, and the thinking behind those episodes had some influence on nuWho as well. Even old Who episodes suggested that there are things even a fully functional Tardis can't do/shouldn't do, though it was never clear whether that was because of rules set down by the Time Lords or something inherent in the nature of time.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 22, 2012, 06:08:53 AM
Over time the position has changed from 'This TARDIS was a wreck that he barely kept together with baling wire and spit that worked just as reliably' to 'This TARDIS is actually the living embodiment of a God and it'll do what it fucking likes, Thank You Very Much'.

This culminated, I'd agree, with Rose breaking it open and then it turning into a woman.

Also, the RTD recreation has it being very....plot devicey.

(While we're talking about the TARDIS, the favourite moment for me was when the Masters TARDIS was inside the Doctors TARDIS which was inside the Masters TARDIS.  That one fucked with my head more than Chameleon or Melkor BEING a TARDIS.)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on October 22, 2012, 07:24:24 AM
How do you remember that stuff?  You're like a memory thingy.  I need memory drugs.  I can't stop saying memory.   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 22, 2012, 07:46:12 AM
I used to be a big Dr Who fan.

I don't watch it anymore.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on October 22, 2012, 07:52:37 AM
Best Tardis moment for my money: At the end of Episode 1 of The Mind Robber. I won't spoil it as you can probably find it on YouTube or elsewhere. A fantastic episode which is scarier than most of today's CGI-ridden episodes thanks to nothing more than some spooky noises. The final scene also has a memorable shot of Wendy Padbury.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 22, 2012, 08:34:41 AM
Is that the 'clung to the console' shot ?

She really was a pretty lassie.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on October 22, 2012, 11:41:12 AM
Stupid thing is that they had a perfectly good plot device to circumvent this already.

They didn't even really need to kill Amy and Rory off in order to provide their exit. The whole goddamn season had been setting up the fatigue the two of them had with being companions. They could just as easily have said "Yep, we're done!" with the usual tearful farewell. Fuck, Martha Jones did it. The whole thing was just unnecessary, not to mention being braindead stupid.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on October 22, 2012, 12:28:17 PM
I get why he felt he needed to do it that way.  While they'd had plenty of lead-up to fatigue they were such immature and short-sighted idiots they couldn't or wouldn't say no to the Doctor.  They'd be discussing, "Gee, this is nice. We're getting in to a routine here, normal lives" and then *blammo* "Well, ok, once more."

It was a weakness on the writer written into the characters themselves.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 22, 2012, 10:42:19 PM
I think there are even better plot contrivances than the timey-wimey stuff that we got here. I still like something along the lines of "The Weeping Angels put a temporal poison in you: you can't time travel any more or even get close to the Tardis or you die." You get all the same emotional stuff and you don't have to sit there and wonder why the Doctor doesn't just send a note for them to come to Wyoming in 1942.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on October 22, 2012, 11:19:30 PM
I think there are even better plot contrivances than the timey-wimey stuff that we got here. I still like something along the lines of "The Weeping Angels put a temporal poison in you: you can't time travel any more or even get close to the Tardis or you die." You get all the same emotional stuff and you don't have to sit there and wonder why the Doctor doesn't just send a note for them to come to Wyoming in 1942.



I hate that less than fixed points in time and has some sort of precedent (I remember something about time traveler pixie dust rubbing off Rose and healing a Dalek or something). God I NERDRAGE so hard just thinking about that. Maybe now would be a good point to just jump off.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ubvman on October 23, 2012, 03:04:08 AM
I think there are even better plot contrivances than the timey-wimey stuff that we got here. I still like something along the lines of "The Weeping Angels put a temporal poison in you: you can't time travel any more or even get close to the Tardis or you die." You get all the same emotional stuff and you don't have to sit there and wonder why the Doctor doesn't just send a note for them to come to Wyoming in 1942.

There are plot-holes so large in the script that you can drive a truck sized Tardis through it. When things are so bollocks, in this circumstance - the producers are either so sloppy as to push out badly thought out rubbish (screw the viewers that can actually think logically); or its just leaving themselves a plausible back door in case they want the Ponds back (the new girl not working out).



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on October 25, 2012, 06:39:58 PM
I'm still at a loss as to how Rory died at all, considering he was, you know, plastic.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 26, 2012, 03:55:01 AM
Is he ?

I thought Amy Ponds Mind Reinvented him when She Recreated the Universe so that The Doctor Wouldn't Die when She Wished Really Hard on a Tinkerbell Dalek to get him to Come to her Wedding.


....


And people ask my why I hate Moffat.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on October 26, 2012, 11:05:34 AM
Is he ?

I thought Amy Ponds Mind Reinvented him when She Recreated the Universe so that The Doctor Wouldn't Die when She Wished Really Hard on a Tinkerbell Dalek to get him to Come to her Wedding.

Yeah. That was the point where I knew it was beyond redemption, and I'm just watching now in the hopes they'll get someone who actually likes the Doctor to write it eventually.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 26, 2012, 05:57:05 PM
Universe reinvented, he is flesh now.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on December 20, 2012, 01:47:21 AM
Spoilered just in case, but picture of the new TARDIS interior.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 20, 2012, 03:24:02 AM
I don't hate that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on December 20, 2012, 03:19:52 PM
Less steampunky. Feels rather 1960s-70s in a decent way.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on December 20, 2012, 04:15:36 PM
It's got a retro sci-fi feel to me, less organic looking then the last.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on December 26, 2012, 05:08:52 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253195/Doctor-Who-Royal-Mail-marks-50th-anniversary-First-Class-celebration.html

Fitting enough place to put this. Someone in England get on this - I need the set!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on December 26, 2012, 06:48:32 PM
Xmas special was ok. Some good stuff, some not-so-good. I love the Sontaran and don't care that he got resurrected without explanation. I am utterly sick of women companions in love with the Doctor. That shit has got to stop, even if there's some kind of Moffaty twist coming. On the whole, I'd say Moffat needs to finish his run and hand it off to someone else--his schtick is getting paralyzingly predictable. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on December 26, 2012, 09:38:07 PM
Xmas special was ok. Some good stuff, some not-so-good. I love the Sontaran and don't care that he got resurrected without explanation. I am utterly sick of women companions in love with the Doctor. That shit has got to stop, even if there's some kind of Moffaty twist coming. On the whole, I'd say Moffat needs to finish his run and hand it off to someone else--his schtick is getting paralyzingly predictable. 

Need another Donna.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Malakili on December 26, 2012, 09:41:16 PM
What are the rules for spoilers in this thread?



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on December 27, 2012, 12:54:02 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on December 27, 2012, 03:24:22 PM
Only watched half of the Christmas special so far. Snowmen look fucking retarded. Sherlock Holmes being a dinosaur lady and a married lesbian makes no sense, since I think the Doctor has talked about working with the real Sherlock Holmes (THE HE SHERLOCK HOLMES) before. New companion is so smoking hot it's not even funny.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on December 28, 2012, 12:52:35 AM
She was hot as a Dalek as well, so I was looking forward to seeing her in an extended role. I also extremely liked the Sontaran (was that the Sontaran nurse?). The Sherlock Holmes thing I can overlook, I just pretend he meant her when he talked about working with the real Sherlock Holmes and just didn't want to spoil her gender then or spared himseld the longwinded explanation (yes, Sherlock Holmes was a lesbian Reptilian woman).



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sky on December 28, 2012, 08:51:39 AM
I thought it was a fun episode, I had totally forgotten where the woman came from, so that was cool. The Sontaran completely stole the episode, though, and needs to be the doctor's new companion. Or even second companion, the bit with the memory worm was awesome.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on December 28, 2012, 10:07:01 PM
I generally enjoyed the whole episode, and I forgotten (as did the Doctor apparently) that Clara was the same hottie from the Dalek episode. I'm sure I'm going to ABSOLUTELY HATE the explanation for just who Clara is. It'll probably be like the Doctor's mother's horse or a piece of the Tardis's consciousness that broke off during that episode where she gained physical form and somehow keeps manifesting herself as the smokingiest hot chick in the goddamn universe or some such shit.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: MahrinSkel on December 28, 2012, 10:25:32 PM
It's painfully obvious what Clara is, in a narrative sense: an inversion of the usual Companion dynamic of trying to keep them alive and grieving for their loss, because she's Kenny.  She'll die every episode.

She's an inversion of most of the rest of the Doctor/Companion dynamic, as well.  She doesn't need things explained to her that every viewer already knows, doesn't react in the usual ways, etc.  They really hung a lampshade on it with the 'It's smaller on the outside.' line.

--Dave


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on December 29, 2012, 01:30:40 AM
I thought that was just there to Show her different mindset insofar that others would have said "Its Bigger on the inside"


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 29, 2012, 03:47:23 AM
It's painfully obvious what Clara is, in a narrative sense: Moffat Wanking.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on December 29, 2012, 12:06:08 PM
I'm sure he's not the only one.  :rimshot:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 29, 2012, 02:42:06 PM
I have previously conceded that the lassie in question is rather attractive.

Indeed, it was pretty much the only reason to tune in at Christmas, though the Sontaran was awfully amusing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on December 30, 2012, 02:29:30 AM
I have previously conceded that the lassie in question is rather attractive.

Indeed, it was pretty much the only reason to tune in at Christmas, though the Sontaran was awfully amusing.


 dont' forget:  Lesbian Lizards !!!   :drillf:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 30, 2012, 06:01:37 AM
EDGY AND EXTREME !

Or not.  Possibly just utterly retarded.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on December 30, 2012, 12:19:41 PM
At this point, showing a gay-married couple has just become a requirement for any story written by Moffat. It might not be so annoying if it didn't feel as forced as the once-an-episode man-kisses from Torchwood.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on December 30, 2012, 02:35:25 PM
At this point, showing a gay-married couple has just become a requirement for any story written by Moffat. It might not be so annoying if it didn't feel as forced as the once-an-episode man-kisses from Torchwood.

I thought that was all Davies, cuz Moffat doesn't have anything to do with Torchwood.
t


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on December 30, 2012, 11:36:23 PM
Right, Davies is Torchwood and Moffat isn't. I was just comparing the stick-out-like-a-sore-thumb-shoehorned-in feeling I get from both circumstances.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on December 31, 2012, 01:17:47 AM
I fell asleep halfway through watching this. Thought it was painfully formulaic and uninteresting.

My other half heard Moffat being interviewed about it on Radio 2 a few days beforehand and he was apparently saying that because it was a Christmas special it would have to have snow, and Victoriana, and a love interest element... so he basically wrote it to formula from the outset.

If I can be bothered to watch the half I slept through I'll make a judgement on the whole thing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 31, 2012, 04:06:52 AM
To be brutally fair :  The Christmas specials have become formulaic anyway (and kinda always were, seeing as you have to shoehorn, you know, CHRISTMAS in there) so it's not a good judge of anything except nice lassies arse.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on December 31, 2012, 11:21:44 AM
And a lovely arse it was.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on December 31, 2012, 11:27:23 AM
No argument from me there  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on March 31, 2013, 08:26:51 PM
New ep. Beware the wifis.

Oswin is still super hot. That is all.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Threash on March 31, 2013, 09:35:52 PM
She's actually hotter now than she was.  Great episode, lots of great lines and a good story.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 01, 2013, 05:34:43 AM
A shade too much Moffat, but I'll agree that it wasn't all that bad and she's utterly, utterly enormously attractive.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 01, 2013, 07:37:16 AM
I thought it was pretty good fun. Also nice to see the Doctor actually win a battle of wits with an enemy without a lot of yelling about being the Onrushing Storm and all that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on April 01, 2013, 07:49:35 AM
Yep, I have to agree, not a bad episode. Much better than the Christmas special which I fell asleep halfway through watching despite the presence of the ridiculously-pleasant-to-watch JLC.

Interesting aside, David Hobby (writer of the Strobist lighting blog) has just posted an entry praising Dr Who (http://strobist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/doctor-who-as-lighting-u.html) for its lighting. I half agree with him. Some of the times it's amazing, sometimes I think it's excessive and unsubtle. Blink is a great example of the good lighting but all the ones with garish pink/blue/green gels on the lights leave me cold.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: JWIV on April 01, 2013, 07:53:46 AM
A shade too much Moffat, but I'll agree that it wasn't all that bad and she's utterly, utterly enormously attractive.

Agree with this completely. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on April 01, 2013, 07:59:49 AM
It has gotten me to change my wifi network name though...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on April 08, 2013, 08:34:05 AM
I'm usually pretty forgiving, but that was one of the most ludicrous episodes of Who I think I've ever seen.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 08, 2013, 10:05:04 AM
I thought there were good bits in it but the structure of the plot was really slapdash and the last act was more like RTD than Moffat in its excesses.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 08, 2013, 11:39:15 AM
One thing I did like was that it looked for a moment as if he was going to defeat the monster by saying I AM THE DOCTOR!!! and giving a little speech about how he is the most amazing thing in the universe - yet again - but this time it didn't work.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ubvman on April 09, 2013, 04:47:01 AM
One thing I did like was that it looked for a moment as if he was going to defeat the monster by saying I AM THE DOCTOR!!! and giving a little speech about how he is the most amazing thing in the universe - yet again - but this time it didn't work.

So true.  :awesome_for_real:

As they say, you're in trouble when you start believing your own PR releases. It's one thing for the bad guys to underestimate the Doctor but it's another kettle of fish for the Doctor to be so full of himself. The 11th Doctor keeps on reminding everybody around him (bad guys and companions) how awesome he is IMHO. Ya he is, but still...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on April 14, 2013, 01:47:05 AM
Ultravox? Do they split up?

Any show that references Vienna and Hungry Like the Wolf in the same episode works for me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 14, 2013, 10:57:01 AM
First two episodes of this were rather terrible. Fuckin Flash Gordon Who.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Threash on April 14, 2013, 11:40:17 AM
So far i think both have been far above average.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 14, 2013, 11:45:20 AM
Very difficult.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 14, 2013, 11:48:23 AM
I liked this one a lot more than the last one. I'm also enjoying the subtle teasing about Clara - when the Professor asked her what she did when she wasn't going on adventures she didn't want to answer, and while her reluctance was perfectly natural in the context of the story it also reminds the viewer that she's a mystery.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 16, 2013, 08:43:04 AM
I thought this was a very good episode--rather a nice updating of not just the Troughton villain but also of the structure of Troughton's usual stories. Loved the call-back to the stupid HADS system.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on April 16, 2013, 04:08:24 PM
Something about this season just isn't catching my attention.  Other than Clara being a hottie.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on April 16, 2013, 04:24:33 PM
I get the impression that there is supposed to be another aspect to her, some mystery we don't know - but they don't have enough material for it, so we are sitting through filler episodes first.

I think the other problem I have is that I found the version of her character as presented in Asylum of the Daleks to be a far more interesting person.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on April 17, 2013, 01:41:02 AM
I think one of the problems is their insistence on it all being single episodes. In my memory most, if not all, of the old Dr Who's were 4-parters possibly with even longer runs for season finales. While they were only 30 mins long or so it still gave more time to develop stories and settings a bit more.

The switch to single, 45-minute episodes makes it feel cramped and rushed. The locations are all throwaway as are 99% of the characters.

What's also lost of course is the Flash Gordon-esque cliffhanger that you used to get at the end of each episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tmon on April 17, 2013, 07:05:37 AM
It may have just been the way PBS aired the old Dr Who shows, but I don't recall there being any overarching story to a season.  There were call backs and recurring villains/adversaries but for the most part the stories were all self contained.  I kind of miss that with the new run of Doctors.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 17, 2013, 07:17:23 AM
Yeah, I think the arcs are a major stumbling block.  They're either good, or they're annoying.

And, to be brutal, I can't really think of a good one.  Even the original bad wolf was kinda...silly.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 17, 2013, 07:51:26 AM
It may have just been the way PBS aired the old Dr Who shows, but I don't recall there being any overarching story to a season.  There were call backs and recurring villains/adversaries but for the most part the stories were all self contained.  I kind of miss that with the new run of Doctors.

Traditional Dr Who rarely hard arcs. There were a few (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_a_Time_Lord) exceptions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who:_The_Key_to_Time).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 17, 2013, 09:47:00 AM
There is a very very small class of serials in the history of this show that were neither too compact or too padded. Mostly people forget how absolutely padded even the best old Who storytelling could be. I still love some of my favorite Pertwee and T. Baker episodes but even those had a ton of repetition and hit-you-over-the-head narration.

I do think they should look at the recurrence in Pertwee's stuff as an interesting model--say, the way that the Master kept showing up without it being an "arc" per se.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 17, 2013, 09:56:51 AM
Yeah, I agree - but look at what they did there;  They turned The Master stuff into the Arc of All Arcs.

Which turned out to be HUGELY RETARDED.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on April 17, 2013, 10:23:04 AM
I wasn't really talking about arcs as such, just having the location/setting/story take place over 4 episodes instead of just 1.

I watched Dr Who as a kid probably from 1970 up until the mid 80's and if you look at the list of episodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials) you can see that they were nearly all 4-7 episodes per "title" with 4-6 titles per season. There were background arcs but they were more about recurring characters like the Master and persistent settings, e.g. the Doctor being stranded on Earth for so long and UNIT etc.

Now each title/story is a single episode (occasionally two) with longer reaching story arcs that try and make it all serious and momentous and yadda yadda yadda. I think 4 episodes, or 3 if the 45 min duration is maintained, per story with 3-4 stories per season would work better.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 18, 2013, 03:24:51 AM
I don't disagree, but the couple of times they've done multiple episodes, it hasn't really added terribly much.  Mostly due to the stories being paper thin nonsense.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on April 18, 2013, 03:29:02 AM
True enough, I can't disagree with that.

Still, Jenna Louise Coleman eh, phwoar.  Sigh.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 18, 2013, 08:01:15 AM
I've actually enjoyed some of the arcs in the new show. They tend to be let down by the grand finale, which is usually horrible, but the bits leading up to that have been good.

For example (no spoiler tags because this is from years ago, ok?) the watch which contains the Doctor's Time Lord soul in Human Nature . . . followed by oh fuck that old Professor also has a watch . . . leading into a couple of great episodes with the Master (despite a terrible resolution with the world being saved through the power of prayer).

Or the Doctor and Rose's romance ending with him failing to say he loves her. That particular season did have a great ending. It might have been better if they'd never bought Rose back to be honest.

Or Donna's story, leading to her saving the whole of reality in Turn Left. Again, I thought that arc had an awful ending with Doctor-Donna, but Donna's story was still interesting.

There has been some good stuff imo even though it gets undermined by the dumb or annoying moments.

(I appreciate that this is not the same issue as multi-episode stories)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 18, 2013, 08:26:33 AM
Trouble is, I thought all those arcs sucked nuts.

The Master thing was an interesting and really, really good way of bringing him back, but then the cleverness got totally lost in the zomg retard.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on April 18, 2013, 08:41:12 AM
I thought the Cybermen Vs the Daleks 2 parter was pretty good fun though, even if it was just an excuse for the 2 of them to start kicking the crap out of one another.

That's probably by far the best of them though, I will agree.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 18, 2013, 09:37:59 AM
Yes, sorry, that was actually really good.

Credit where it's due, the whole Genesis Ark thing worked out wonderfully.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 21, 2013, 01:35:05 PM
Ok, that ghost episode was really rather good.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: JWIV on April 21, 2013, 04:21:47 PM
Ok, that ghost episode was really rather good.

Yah - some nice build up especially in the beginning and overall pretty solid.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Setanta on April 21, 2013, 04:57:28 PM
Although I grew up with the series back to watching afternoon TV with Jon Pertwee as The Doctor, Tom Baker was the real Doctor for me then. Having said that, my favourite is Chris Eccleston who (just barely) really did an amazing job with the role. The story arcs were damn good too, better than many of the ones Tennant was in. Eccleston nailed the elements of a man who would destroy his own people in such a convincing manner that you would blink when he went manic.

I can't get into the new series at all. It's like picking up the US version of Torchwood and going "yep...nope".


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on April 23, 2013, 04:57:48 PM
Ok, that ghost episode was really rather good.
Oh dear, Ironwood's been replaced by a Rutan.  :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 23, 2013, 06:48:19 PM
I thought that was a great episode. Blended some of the best old Who and new Who in its mood and structure. Just the right dose of character arc/ongoing mystery sprinkled in there.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on April 24, 2013, 01:39:22 PM
Just watched the Ice Warrior episode last night. Loved the armor and the story wasn't bad at that. Funny seeing two actors I've both just recently seen in Game of Thrones together in one episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 27, 2013, 08:03:58 PM
This week's episode was a hot mess. I thought that was one of the worst episodes in a long, long time and it unfortunately was working with important 'canon' material as opposed to some throwaway like "Fear Her".


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Malakili on April 27, 2013, 08:07:24 PM
I didn't think it was a total trainwreck but...



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on April 27, 2013, 10:04:21 PM
But still, it opened with the Cult. So, points for that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on April 27, 2013, 11:21:41 PM
I didn't think it was a total trainwreck but...


You should just be glad they didn't do it by hugging and believing really hard, like 80% of the endings in the last couple years. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 28, 2013, 04:16:58 AM
This is what happens ;  they give you a good episode that sets you up that it might not be a total pile of shit and BAM, TARDIS episode that should have been great reduced to Poo.

That dress was stunning though.  Very floaty in the right places.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on April 28, 2013, 06:26:18 AM
The salvager guys were just flat out horrible, particularly the excrutiating 'twist' of the cyborg brother. The thing that annoys me is that the elements were there for this to be a very good episode. Just have the Tardis collide with some kind of exotic matter--heck, if you want, make it be temporal debris from the Time War, maybe a sort of temporal 'land mine'--and have the Doctor and Clara have to repair several parts of it. Make the time zombies into something like the Reapers, maybe--time parasites who exist outside of normal time-space who get in when there's a wound, like bacteria on skin. Let the Doctor, Clara and the TARDIS all have to work together to change the interiors in order to keep getting away from the time parasites. Then admittedly it's a simple monsters-and-corridors structure but I'm ok with that if they do some good character work--let them get stuck in the library for a while and for the Doctor to awkwardly have to explain a few more things to Clara about who he is and where he comes from. Set up the whole 'I don't trust you, you might be a trap' thing. Heck, even hit a magic reset button. Just stay away from the utterly dumb salvage guys and the non-necessary timey-wimey shit.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: JWIV on April 28, 2013, 10:15:09 AM
1 - The best part of the episode was that dress.

2 - The rest of it was a disjointed incoherent mess. I'm in complete agreement with the criticisms so far.  The episode had a great premise, but the writing was rushed and overall just weak.  My feeling after it was that with the number of great sets and story elements they were playing with, it should have either been tore apart and redone as a two part episode or just focused on one or two things (that library could be damn near an entire episode in and of itself).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ubvman on April 28, 2013, 10:11:48 PM
They seem to be doing they're very best to forget the Neil Gaiman episode; IMHO one of the best Doctor Who stories I have seen. Or rather avoid the implications of a sentient, rational (in it's own way) Tardis altogether.

I would admit a sentient Tardis interacting with the doctor would make all companions redundant and would basically paint Dr. Who into a corner; but really at the very least after "The doctor's wife" to stop writing the Tardis like deranged constipated puppy like what happened in this episode.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 29, 2013, 03:25:42 AM
Everything in your spoilers is actually SO MUCH WORSE than you think.  It makes a huge negative amount of sense.  I particularly like dissassembling a control panel that's locked the doors and has a self destruct on it.

How the fuck was he supposed to turn it off ?

This whole episode was mega, mega shite and I get particularly aggrevied at the whole 'The Doctor is Fantasy, he's got Harry Potters Workshop BULLSHIT.'  Moffat needs to STOP FUCKING TOUCHING things.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 29, 2013, 11:44:47 AM
All of the above. And just to emphasise,

I still loved the Doctor and Clara interactions. I think the show does a great job of convincing both the Doctor and the viewer that she really is innocent and at the same time hinting that she has a secret . . .

I think there could one day be a good story about someone getting lost in the Tardis, or possibly breaking in, and the Doctor then has to protect them from the Tardis itself.

The episode  had a bit of a Willy Wonka (the Gene Wilder version) vibe for me, which was actually pretty cool but not enough to save it.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on April 30, 2013, 11:08:23 AM
Didn't we already get great episodes about someone getting lost in the Tardis in the Peter Davidson era?

I am caught up to the ghost episode and that one was really good except for the Doctor catching a ride on the outside of the Tardis. This 'fairy tale' bullshit really is getting fucking old. This madcap sense of shit just happening without making any sense is getting old.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on April 30, 2013, 03:03:24 PM
Caught up with the Ice Warrior one, but it wasn't the greatest ( or the worst ) and some bits bugged me as being 'not quite right'.  That's the trouble with the nod to the old style, the purists get knickers in a knot about the little things, like the hands being WRONG.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on April 30, 2013, 08:35:24 PM
More fucking timey-wimey goddamn nonsense that completely ignores already established rules of the show universe. Moffat... seriously, fuck that guy.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on May 04, 2013, 08:33:03 PM
That episode look more like a pilot for Strax, Vastra, and Jenny then a normal Dr. Who episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on May 04, 2013, 10:43:34 PM
Jesus, this one hurt.  Whoever came up with the "Thomas Thomas" stuff needs to be selling cigarettes at the bus station by this time tomorrow. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 05, 2013, 05:31:09 AM
Tom Tom was super dumb. But I thought the rest of the episode was reasonably fun, light, again a kind of retro feel. Been a while since the Doctor was up against an uncomplicated Bond villain sort of bad guy, and I liked to see one again--I get tired of villains who taunt the Doctor with "But you're like me, you really are" and all that. Diana Rigg chewed scenery rather spectacularly.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 05, 2013, 03:39:31 PM
I might be easily pleased but the Sontaran made me laugh every time he opened his mouth.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Malakili on May 05, 2013, 03:49:37 PM
Not one of the stronger episodes in my opinion.  It felt like it was over before it got started. The TomTom thing was dumb but it amounted to a one liner and I'm not going to crap all over one bad joke.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 06, 2013, 10:49:31 AM
I might be easily pleased but the Sontaran made me laugh every time he opened his mouth.

Best part of the episode. Villain was just a little weak, but at least the explanations weren't all timey-wimey handwavy bullshit.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Father mike on May 06, 2013, 11:22:17 AM
That episode look more like a pilot for Strax, Vastra, and Jenny then a normal Dr. Who episode.

I would watch the living hell outta this show.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 06, 2013, 03:53:40 PM
Diana Rigg chewed scenery rather spectacularly.
Fun trivia: Go look up the actress who played the daughter.

Anyway, I quite liked that "Mr Sweet" didn't turn out to be some sort of eminence grise (I was half-expecting the Great Intellegence, to be honest) and it was all just the insane scheme of a mad genius who decided to do "steampunk Moonraker". (Also Vasta's partner/maidservant/arsekicker-in-chief seemed to be raiding the wardrobe of one of Dame Rigg's prior roles).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 06, 2013, 05:53:28 PM
Yeah I didn't get it immediately, but having her in a leather catsuit was a great touch.

(I mean, I appreciated the catsuit immediately but not necessarily for the right reason).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 13, 2013, 05:04:55 AM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/8666521/BBC-stuffs-up-Doctor-Who-finale (http://lol?)

What's to spoil ?  Moffat, wanky wanky, timey wimey, wanky wanky, Geronimo, Dr Who ?  DOCTOR WHO ??  DOCTOR WHOOOOOOO???, wanky, wanky, Stupid dumbass overarching fuck nonsense with Clara, no nudity like there fucking should be, tears, cheap set, explosion, Moffat wanky wanky.

I don't get the worry.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 18, 2013, 02:28:49 PM
:facepalm:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on May 18, 2013, 02:53:57 PM
I came here to post after watching that, then realised there are no words....


I heartily approve of the concept of someone playing the doctor being over 35 years old mind you.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 18, 2013, 03:07:21 PM
Except He's not.

We're in Prequel  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeyard)territory now.

Fuck me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 18, 2013, 05:33:32 PM
I'm normally all in favour of ignoring continuity if it conflicts with telling a good story but they can't get all fan wanky on us and then ignore the fact that he's called the Doctor because he has a doctorate, probably in science. It's not about healing people. I mean, the fact that he is a scientist is an important part of his character, or it was. I know I shouldn't worry...

I liked the references to the old show as a long-time fan. No idea what casual viewers will have made of it all.

I liked the way Clara's costumes changed to match the period the various Doctors were on our TV screens. It makes no sense in the storyline but it was a really nice touch.

Richard E Grant was great, John Hurt will be great despite the terrible storyline he'll no doubt be placed in, Matt Smith was great.

There was a hint that River Song is finished with at last, yay.

I'm still not clear when the Doctor and River actually have a relationship. Is that still in his future?

The Sontaran is still funny every time.

The lizard lady actually genuinely treats her girlfriend as a servant when they're alone? That's kind of creepy.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 18, 2013, 08:08:27 PM
I have not been liking the recent stuff that much but I actually did like this one rather a lot. Not sure how it ties into all the "fall of the Eleventh" wankery from the last season unless at the end of the 50th special the Doctor regenerates again.

I'm ok with Hurt being the secret Doctor.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on May 18, 2013, 09:37:50 PM
This was one of the best season finales of the new series- at least it wasn't resolved by wishing or believing really hard.  Also, wasn't Clara's ending pretty much Rose's ending ("Bad Wolf") from the revived series 1? 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Threash on May 18, 2013, 09:51:43 PM

I liked the way Clara's costumes changed to match the period the various Doctors were on our TV screens. It makes no sense in the storyline but it was a really nice touch.


Why wouldn't it make sense? It wasn't the same Clara.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on May 19, 2013, 12:21:50 AM
I liked it. But that's because I dig Clara and Strax so goddamn much.

The rest? I'm afraid Ironwwod may be right and we're approaching Valeyard territory.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 19, 2013, 12:49:05 AM
I watched the season finale knowing nothing about it right after watching Nightmare in Silver. The cyberman episode was decent. I even liked the finale...

until...

What... the... fuck?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 19, 2013, 05:45:12 AM
Strax is really great.

"Surrender your women and intellectuals!"


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 19, 2013, 06:36:08 AM

I liked the way Clara's costumes changed to match the period the various Doctors were on our TV screens. It makes no sense in the storyline but it was a really nice touch.


Why wouldn't it make sense? It wasn't the same Clara.

If she's on the planet Zygax in 15,000 AD why would she be wearing the type of clothes British people wore in the 1970s just because she's with a doctor who happened to be on our TV screens in the 1970s in real life? Or in 1980s clothes if she's with a 1980s Doctor? (And a matching hairstyle too). Sure it makes sense that her clothes would change but not that they always change to match the real life air dates of the TV shows:) But it was pretty cool anyway.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on May 19, 2013, 08:01:33 AM
I have not been liking the recent stuff that much but I actually did like this one rather a lot. Not sure how it ties into all the "fall of the Eleventh" wankery from the last season unless at the end of the 50th special the Doctor regenerates again.
TheTARDIS fell from orbit.  :drill:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on May 19, 2013, 09:26:49 AM
I just caught a video of some random 12 year old on points of view pointing out that things aren't really very scientific when a sun somehow sucking up memories is somehow defeated by a leaf somehow containing everything.

It was like Ironwood's bastard had been smuggled out to the home counties, and brainwashed into not swearing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on May 20, 2013, 07:51:23 PM
So I was thinking.. did we actually see the last of River Song?  I mean the Doctor still hasn't told her his name.  I think that's the secret she tells to him in the library before she dies.  Especially since the Doctor is currently mucking around in his own timeline.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Pennilenko on May 20, 2013, 08:17:40 PM
I might be confused but I thought the doctor told river his name some time ago.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Threash on May 20, 2013, 08:47:13 PM
She read it from his baby carriage.  And she used it to open the tomb.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on May 20, 2013, 09:24:38 PM
I might be confused but I thought the doctor told river his name some time ago.

That was during the Wedding of River Song.  He actually didn't tell her his name then.  He told her to look in his eye so that she would know it was the robot Doctor.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2013, 10:34:05 PM
I gather all the interesting bits with the Doctor and River happened off camera in between stories.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 21, 2013, 04:57:00 AM
Because they weren't really that interesting.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 21, 2013, 08:40:15 AM
Because they weren't really that interesting.

They might have been if River hadn't ended up being Amy's goddamn Tardis-tarded daughter. Maybe. Or if they'd been written by someone not-Moffat. Maybe a turnip.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 21, 2013, 08:49:38 AM
Maybe you should just watch The Time Travellers Wife and then The Lake House.

That'll cover it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 21, 2013, 11:39:06 AM
I stumbled across "Rose", the pilot of the new series, on a video site (Metacafe - probably a massive copyright infringement). Watched the first ten minutes and while it has its faults it's pretty good. Obviously I saw it at the time, but watching it now I was really struck by how much the show had changed.

One thing that comes across clearly is that they didn't make a show for Doctor Who fans. They made a show for young people who had never heard of Doctor Who but might be interested in a cool new series about a girl who goes on adventures with a mysterious stranger.

Despite being old and a Doctor Who fan myself, I really wish they'd go back to that philosophy.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on May 21, 2013, 12:20:57 PM
I think it's fine to play around with some of the Doctor's mysteries, but yes, the show has become way, way, way too much about the Doctor. I suppose, Moffat aside, that this is not that surprising a result of killing off the Time Lords--it deprived the Doctor of superiors/peers who were not enemies, among whom he was just "one more". The "fairy tale" idea is also causing problems.

Something that was a bit more madcap, a bit less structured, a bit less portentous, would be a good direction for the post-50th. I don't think Moffat has that in him, so I hope they can identify a new showrunner somewhere further along.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on May 31, 2013, 03:29:03 PM
Finally got around to watching this.

Fuck me what the fucking fuck was that all about? What a random collection of half-baked ideas strung together with no care whatsoever. It just felt like a checklist of "Things a Season Finale Should Have" thrown in haphazardly.

Scary eyeless toothy monsters, check.
Key allies from whole series collected together just because, check.
Ominous stormy war-ravaged planet, check.
Old adversary of some kind but not the Master Cybermen Daleks etc etc because we've already milked those tits drier than fucking sand, check.
Timey wimey wibbly wobbly time travel's always been possible in dreams gibber gibber I can write any old bollocks and it doesn't matter they still screen it not of sound mind and body bdoing ptui fnarr fnarr Moffatt, check!

Sigh, it doesn't surprise me any more, but it still disappoints me.


Anyway:
Richard E Grant was great, John Hurt will be great despite the terrible storyline he'll no doubt be placed in, Matt Smith was great.

This. And I agree with the rest of your post too palmer. Lots of great people in this show, being fucked up the arse by the dribbling cockstain of a writer. Interestingly I noticed while browsing the IMDB during a particularly spacktastic section of the finale that the Sontaran part is written by someone else, which is presumably why it's good.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on May 31, 2013, 03:49:07 PM
Really ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on May 31, 2013, 04:32:23 PM
the Sontaran part is written by someone else, which is presumably why it's good.

Why would you hire one writer to do one character's dialogue?

That would explain it though.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on June 01, 2013, 12:44:32 AM
Yup, and the Silurian too apparently. Link (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267346/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_wr#writers).

Quote
Writing credits
Steven Moffat       (written by)

Malcolm Hulke       (character "Silurians")

Robert Holmes       (character "Sontarans")


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on June 01, 2013, 07:15:39 AM
So, just crediting the people who created the character race, same way they credited Terry Nation for the Daleks.


[stealth edit] Subbed Terry Nation for Terrance Dicks. Brain fart of too much Doctor Who knowledge


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 01, 2013, 07:58:45 AM
Yeah, they're the old creators.

I thought that seemed odd.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on June 01, 2013, 08:28:24 AM
Ahh OK I see, sorry my mistake. My brain was partially liquified from trying to pay attention to Moffatplot.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on June 01, 2013, 05:53:42 PM
Matt Smith leaving the show at the end of the year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22741493


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on June 01, 2013, 06:15:57 PM
The Book he will probably write about how shittastic it was to be working for an idiot like Moffat will be epic.

The interesting thing about all this is that everyone agrees that he is good and no-one blames him for the trainwrecks of Dr. Who lately, but they agree its just that he is hamstrung by the idiot scripts he is handed.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on June 01, 2013, 06:20:10 PM
So Rupert Grint as the new Doctor?   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on June 01, 2013, 06:25:00 PM
How about Victoria Becham or Kim Kardashian?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: JWIV on June 01, 2013, 07:37:14 PM
How about Victoria Becham or Kim Kardashian?  :why_so_serious:

It might be time for the series to embrace an American - maybe Luke Perry?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on June 01, 2013, 07:53:57 PM
Idriss. Fucking. Elba.

Doctor Lu(ther)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 01, 2013, 08:17:19 PM
Idris Elba is a genuinely good idea.

I'm cool with a woman too--if I trusted Moffat et al not to turn the entire season into "Hey, look, I have a vagina now and menstruate and stuff", which I don't.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on June 01, 2013, 08:59:48 PM
What if Clara is actually not only the "impossible girl" but also the next Doctor?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on June 01, 2013, 09:19:43 PM
I'd buy THAT for a dollar.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: MahrinSkel on June 01, 2013, 10:28:54 PM
What if Clara is actually not only the "impossible girl" but also the next Doctor?
I was wondering about that, a year ago Moffat was publicly musing about the possibility of a "Doctor Her", and then when Jenna-Louise was brought in there was *far* more Top-Secret behavior than seemed justified for just another Companion.

--Dave


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Hayduke on June 01, 2013, 11:05:31 PM
A female doc would be kind of cool.  But I don't really care.  I kind of just hope it's not another goofy, pasty white guy though.  They need someone different and severe to cleanse the palate.  And they need to get rid of the horrible handwaviness that seems to wrap up every episode and nerd fantasy companions.  I think Matt Smith did admirably given what he had to work with though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on June 02, 2013, 12:05:58 AM
How about Victoria Becham or Kim Kardashian?  :why_so_serious:

It might be time for the series to embrace an American - maybe Luke Perry?  :why_so_serious:

Shia leBeouf.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Hayduke on June 02, 2013, 12:53:50 AM
Americans don't play Americans on tv anymore.  They'd have to get an Australian or kiwi to fake an American accent if they went that way.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on June 02, 2013, 03:09:29 AM
Personally I'm hoping for Kylie, or Jason Statham.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on June 02, 2013, 03:11:43 AM
Actually no. I just remembered the comic relief special. They should bring back Joanna Lumley.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on June 02, 2013, 03:21:01 AM
Wait, I'm confused (again). John Hurt isn't the next doctor? What was that reveal at the end of the season all about then? Is he going to be another The Doctor rather than the The Doctor? What's going on?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on June 02, 2013, 03:26:51 AM
I think all we really got is he's possibly a part of the Doctor that all his incarnations have turned their back on.  No one really knows yet, but there are a lot of theories out there.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on June 02, 2013, 04:01:43 AM
Wait, I'm confused (again). John Hurt isn't the next doctor? What was that reveal at the end of the season all about then? Is he going to be another The Doctor rather than the The Doctor? What's going on?

John Hurt is the doctor if you believe really hard that he is.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 02, 2013, 04:22:16 AM
Seriously, read the link I posted.

If Hurt isn't playing the Valeyard incarnation, I'll be surprised.

Though I'd like to go on record as saying that I think the whole Valeyard thing was retardery that predated Moffat by a long time.  Doesn't surprise me he finally dug it up tho.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on June 02, 2013, 05:59:56 AM
Unff. The Valeyard stuff you mean? That does sound like it'll be ripe for Moffat to utterly, utterly fuck up.

Poor John Hurt.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on June 02, 2013, 06:43:38 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on June 02, 2013, 08:20:34 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/qGrEJYQ.jpg)

Is this true?  A buddy just passed this around on his G+ page.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on June 02, 2013, 09:35:38 AM
No. That's a shitty shoop.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Threash on June 02, 2013, 09:50:00 AM
Benedict Cumberbatch should be the next doctor and Martin Freeman the next companion.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 02, 2013, 01:44:21 PM

Hmmmm.

That sounds interesting actually.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on June 02, 2013, 02:39:00 PM
It would kind of make sense if he became the valeyard for that specific incarnation, and you could blame all the Colin Baker stuff on his own self loathing and borderline insanity.


The problem, of course, is that there are no writers involved who are likely to be able to write a satisfying version of what daddy did in the war.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Pennilenko on June 02, 2013, 02:55:34 PM
I think all we really got is he's possibly a part of the Doctor that all his incarnations have turned their back on.  No one really knows yet, but there are a lot of theories out there.

My theory is that he represents the Doctor before he became the Doctor, He is the pure Timelord portion of the Doctor's being. I suspect the whole history of the Doctor where he banished the Timelords and destroyed an entire galaxy to exterminate the cybermen takes place before he became "The Doctor."


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Hayduke on June 02, 2013, 03:32:21 PM
That's pretty much exactly what I thought as well.  It wasn't until I came to the internet and saw that so many people were overthinking it that I started to doubt myself.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on June 02, 2013, 04:04:36 PM
Matt Smith leaving without ever having had a full season of worthwhile scripts is a goddamn shame. He did a spectacular job with complete and utter nothing to work with. He (and the hotness that was Amy Pond and is Clara) were the only reasons I kept watching through the Moffatry.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Pennilenko on June 02, 2013, 05:19:52 PM
I can't find it anymore for a link, but a while back I signed some sort of online petition to remove Moffat.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Hayduke on June 02, 2013, 06:47:06 PM
Was it on whitehouse.gov?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on June 02, 2013, 08:00:00 PM
I don't buy that Hurt is the "tortured enderer of the Time War."  The Ninth Doctor was extremely open about everything he did (I think he said something like "I burned them all up.").  It wasn't a secret then.   


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 02, 2013, 09:26:03 PM
The idea that the ender of the Time War is a secret shame, etc., makes no sense. The Doctor has been very open about having done it, on occasion coming this close to bragging about it. No sense of secret, if some sense of regret.

I'm hoping Hurt is the pre-Hartnell Doctor--that the Doctor did something early in his life that changed him completely--went along with something bad. Maybe the story of Omega and Rassilon has a sort of third chapter involving the Timelords doing one additional thing that gave them their powers that was really sinister or horrible. We've never learned how they got their regeneration cycle, for example. Maybe the Doctor played an important role in that and then rejected what he'd done and what his people were becoming, rejected his family and estate, regenerated into Hartnell and lived a life where he stewed over what he'd done, maybe tried to persuade his fellow Time Lords to undo it, etc. and when he gave up on that, grabbed his favorite grand-daughter and decided to go renegade.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 03, 2013, 04:41:27 AM
I don't buy that Hurt is the "tortured enderer of the Time War."  The Ninth Doctor was extremely open about everything he did (I think he said something like "I burned them all up.").  It wasn't a secret then.   

I'd like to go on record that I don't think it's the case either :  I just think it's a more interesting proposition than what I'm thinking.

Also, The Doctor, in that WONDERFUL conversation with The Master, was quite clear that it was something he did and while he's not proud of it, he accepted it as HIS.

(Seriously, if you haven't watched that particular scene, get it.  John Simm and Tennant were utter mesmerising.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Numtini on June 04, 2013, 07:29:15 AM
At some point, it has to not be a white guy or they're going to end up in the position Star Trek is with gay characters. Too late by so long that it's embarrassing and difficult to deal with other than just plain apologizing for being idiots. Put me down as favoring someone over 30 and a woman. They keep going sillier and younger. I love me a cranky old doctor. She's already said she wants it and I'd love to see Helen Mirren. She was on my shortlist last time.

Russel Tovey seems to be on everyone's short list. He's not on mine, but if he is, just go nuts and reveal that Midshipman Frame was the doctor and bring on Captain Jack as his occasional lover.

I love Idris Elba, but the more I think, the less I think doctor. Maybe it's just what I've seen him in, but too intense and in the wrong ways. Though if Mr. Craig is looking to find something else to do with his time, I wouldn't weep to see him as Bond.

I have over 20 episodes to slog through though. Mr. Moffat has turned this from "watch it first thing on the DVR and sometimes live" to "watch while it's raining and I'm stuck at home alone with my daughter."


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on June 04, 2013, 07:45:45 AM
The idea that the ender of the Time War is a secret shame, etc., makes no sense. The Doctor has been very open about having done it, on occasion coming this close to bragging about it. No sense of secret, if some sense of regret.

I'm hoping Hurt is the pre-Hartnell Doctor--that the Doctor did something early in his life that changed him completely--went along with something bad. Maybe the story of Omega and Rassilon has a sort of third chapter involving the Timelords doing one additional thing that gave them their powers that was really sinister or horrible. We've never learned how they got their regeneration cycle, for example. Maybe the Doctor played an important role in that and then rejected what he'd done and what his people were becoming, rejected his family and estate, regenerated into Hartnell and lived a life where he stewed over what he'd done, maybe tried to persuade his fellow Time Lords to undo it, etc. and when he gave up on that, grabbed his favorite grand-daughter and decided to go renegade.

That would be a nice little storyline. Plenty of material there to expand on, and in terms of some of these wrtiers, completely fuck up.

As an aside, I have a question. The Doctor's daughter. She is a Timelord correct? And thus, she is alive and fully stocked on regenerations. Or was there some caveat that negated that? Might be a possibility for the future is this really is the final Doctor coming up and could give rise to an all female run - not the Doctor per se but yeah....


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2013, 07:53:17 AM
Yes, she's a Time-Lord with 11 or 12 regenerations left.

However, there's something 'odd' about her that we're not yet privvy to.  It's possible due to the duplicate nature of the DNA, The Doctor can't sense her.  He's still of the opinion that he's the only Time Lord, despite us knowing different.

It would be really, really good if she could come back as a companion at some point.  Especially given that you have total leeway with casting as it's in built handwavvy at this point.  Romana was awesome and even the nonsense that was The Rani had enough meat on it to be fun.


Khaldun has an interesting story there, so it'll almost certainly be rejected.  There's also the issue that you can't really retroactively make regenerations, since up to 5, The Doctor himself stated that he hadn't had one, if you follow me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 04, 2013, 09:35:46 AM
Having him change genders would seem odd to me. You can't change genders and be the same person (people in real life do not change genders to my knowledge, they might change sex which is not the same thing (if he changed sex but not gender that would make him a transexual which I wouldn't  object to but I don't think anyone's suggesting that as a storyline)).

I know there's a tendency in fandom at the moment to say that if you don't think he can be a woman than that makes you a misogynist but I'd be more than happy to go without the Doctor for a few years and watch the adventures of Romana instead. Or indeed to have a male time lord and a female companion who does more than make doe eyes at him.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Numtini on June 04, 2013, 10:55:14 AM
I believe they already established that timelords can regenerate across sex.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2013, 10:59:41 AM
I believe they already established that timelords can regenerate across sex.

Um ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 04, 2013, 12:38:43 PM
Yes, she's a Time-Lord with 11 or 12 regenerations left.

However, there's something 'odd' about her that we're not yet privvy to.  It's possible due to the duplicate nature of the DNA, The Doctor can't sense her.  He's still of the opinion that he's the only Time Lord, despite us knowing different.

It would be really, really good if she could come back as a companion at some point.  Especially given that you have total leeway with casting as it's in built handwavvy at this point.  Romana was awesome and even the nonsense that was The Rani had enough meat on it to be fun.


Khaldun has an interesting story there, so it'll almost certainly be rejected.  There's also the issue that you can't really retroactively make regenerations, since up to 5, The Doctor himself stated that he hadn't had one, if you follow me.


Yeah, but they've already covered themselves on this one: Hurt isn't "the Doctor" exactly. All his later regenerations renounced him (however many are "later", depending on when he happened in the Doctor's timeline) so they'd not count him and not even want to ever let anyone know about him.

I really like the idea of the Doctor as a political dissident disowning not just his people but his earlier self. It doesn't just enrich the character, it enriches his mythos--it begins to make the numbers of Time Lords who went renegade in one way or the other make a new kind of sense.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2013, 01:37:23 PM
I dunno.  I'm with Ockham on this one.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on June 04, 2013, 03:54:36 PM
Occam thinks Moffat is simple?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2013, 04:39:13 PM
No, he thinks he's a hack that's going to rip off the Valeyard shite.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 04, 2013, 04:54:20 PM
The Valeyard is not a good idea and they'd be wise to stay far away from anything in that era of the show. It's one reason I'm more sanguine about Moffat even when I don't like his approach--I really think the people flipping out need to watch late-period John Nathan-Turner Who to get a better sense of proportion about what badness can be.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2013, 05:00:14 PM
You don't need to tell me about Pants Baker and Awful McCoy.

 :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: adjunct on June 06, 2013, 10:23:36 PM
Perhaps Hurt is playing a later version of the 8th (doubtful) or someone between 8 and 9 who actually led the charge in the Time War. Perhaps The Doctor ended the Time War because he himself caused it or made it worse in some way in a regeneration that he is trying to hide?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 07, 2013, 03:18:02 PM
I think you have to imagine that the Time War has been going on at least since "Genesis of the Daleks"--in fact, that the Time Lords, knowing something about the likely evolution of the Daleks, were the initial aggressors in the war in "Genesis" but only succeeded in giving Davros and the Daleks an early awareness of the existence of time travel. The Time War that the 8th or 9th Doctor fought more actively in seems to me to be some kind of escalation or all-out intensification of an ongoing conflict.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on June 07, 2013, 06:38:44 PM
Stop trying to puzzle it out with logic.

This a Moffat plot line. It won't make any sense.

I don't really have any problem with him being the valeyard. It was terrible first time around because the scripts of that era were terrible, not because the idea is especially bad. It will probably be terrible this time as well, but because of the writer, not because of the idea.

 A doctor regeneration who shows up to end the time war and then develops such self loathing he becomes an antagonist for the other regenerations sounds like a decent premise. The issue is going to be the execution. There is no way Moffat can write a satisfying time war, or a satisfying way to resolve the meeting of the doctors with the Valeyard. Writing mechanics based episodes is hard at the best of times.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on June 17, 2013, 04:09:55 PM
So since I'd seen so little of Colin Baker's run and the Valeyard keeps getting brought up, I Netflixed Part 1 of Trial of the Time Lord.

Yeah, it wasn't very good. Even in relation to the Baker "guys wrapped in bubble wrap," it was not good. Peri is fucking annoying as shit. I can imagine Brits getting up in arms about an "American" being a companion but really, she was just irritating. And when they wrote Colin Baker's version of the Doctor, was their starting baseline "raging dickhead?" Because he was. He just left Peri to wander on a mysterious planet alone like that ever ends well and didn't give two shits about her bad feelings. The only other episode of his I saw also portrayed him as a total tool. Were the writers just tired of the Doctor being liked?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on June 17, 2013, 09:04:56 PM
Actually, pretty much exactly that. The plan for Colin Baker was that he would be enormously unlikeable and unstable in his first year and then essentially be broken down and built back up again--that the character would have to earn his likeability through dramatic travails. The problem with that was: an incompetent producer, an actor more or less incapable of pulling it off, wretched scripts, a thoroughly unlikeable companion who was just tits and screaming, and bad adversaries. Trial of a Time Lord was their attempt to get the plan back on track--too little too late. Then you get the Cartmel Masterplan with McCoy, but the first year of McCoy's scripts and characterization weren't in synch with the better ideas of the masterplan. He was kind of sort of getting there when the show got cancelled but the scripts were still pretty weak.

In many ways, nuWho is many the good ideas that were utterly lost in horrible horrible execution in the last 3-4 years of the old show brought forward with better scripts, better show-running, better effects and better actors.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 18, 2013, 02:23:58 AM
And then Moffat happened and we ended up right back in there again.

I never minded Peri that much.  The tits were, in fact, utterly fantastic.  There's a line from Peter Davidson about his regeneration scene, in which he mentions the sadness of leaving the role was overshadowed by her leaning over him as he died.  Spectacular view.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on June 18, 2013, 02:51:01 AM
Neither Colin Baker nor Slyvester McCoy were bad actors.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but there has never been a run in Who that was bad because of the doctor's performance.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on June 18, 2013, 07:11:53 AM
Oh come on, there are actors that just aren't suited to particular roles.  While McCoy had some 'good' Doctor moments, I watched the entirety of Colin Baker and there wasn't a good bit to be found ANYWHERE.  It was a big, big mistake putting him there.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 18, 2013, 07:52:22 AM
A doctor regeneration who shows up to end the time war and then develops such self loathing he becomes an antagonist for the other regenerations sounds like a decent premise. The issue is going to be the execution. There is no way Moffat can write a satisfying time war, or a satisfying way to resolve the meeting of the doctors with the Valeyard. Writing mechanics based episodes is hard at the best of times.

That could be a good story.

I'd got the impression though that the Ecclestone Doctor was already supposed to be something a little like that. At the end of Journey's End, when Rose goes off to live with the human Doctor, the real Doctor gives a little speech about how the human Doctor was kind of evil because he'd been born in a war and suggests basically that Rose's love would save him, and if I recall correctly he says something to the effect that Rose has already done that once before, which seemed to be a reference to the ninth Doctor, as I understood it anyway.

Moffat has done some good stuff in the past though. Let's hope for a return to form! So we can be horribly dissapointed


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on June 27, 2013, 02:30:21 PM
Speaking of probable disappointments, that rumours of someone finding 90 of the 'lost' episodes just refuses to die.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on August 02, 2013, 04:17:49 AM
I gather the new doctor actor is being announced on Sunday.

Peter Capaldi and Idris Elba lead the betting. I would assume Elba is only there because he gets mentioned for literally every conceivable role. Capaldi would be an interesting choice, I really struggle to picture him in the same Tennant/Smith hyperactive big kid mold. If they want something a little darker in the vein of Hartnell/Baker/Ecclestone he could be a great choice, whether Moffat can write for that is another matter.

Also worth noting I've hated every doctor choice in the history of the show when they were announced, and every actor has proved me wrong (despite often terrible material to work with). So my opinion on this subject is broadly unsound.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on August 02, 2013, 04:30:03 AM
I know they used actors as companions that had different roles in the past, but John Frobisher as the Doctor? The big man himself recycled?

But then I am partial to Idris Elba as Doctor, not that this would ever happen...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on August 02, 2013, 05:17:14 AM
Being the doctor is a 6 month/year commitment that is likely to typecast you for both TV and film work. Elba would be daft to take it if he wants to build a film career. Especially if the bond rumours are true.

The Doctor is a much better proposition for a career stage actor who could use a TV gig to pay bills in the short term and ramp up his box office pull in the long term, while still giving him enough of the year free for a turn in the west end during the off months. Hence Tennant, Smith, Capaldi.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 02, 2013, 05:22:15 AM
Romana did it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on August 02, 2013, 08:38:02 AM
I'd still like to see Rupert Grint get the job.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 02, 2013, 08:43:32 AM
In the meantime, it's also clear from the folks who saw the trailer for the 50th at Comic Con that Hurt is the Time War Doctor--maybe even the person who started the Time War with an all-out attack on the Daleks.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on August 02, 2013, 12:39:16 PM
I'd still like to see Rupert Grint get the job.   :awesome_for_real:

I have my doubts about Mr. Grint's actual acting ability, so no.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on August 02, 2013, 01:06:17 PM
Peter Capaldi looks to be the most likely candidate.  I guess they've stopped letting people even bet on him being named on Sunday.  Not really familiar with who he is and I don't know if an older Doctor will really help the show in the long run.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lianka on August 02, 2013, 01:17:03 PM
Peter Capaldi looks to be the most likely candidate.  I guess they've stopped letting people even bet on him being named on Sunday.  Not really familiar with who he is and I don't know if an older Doctor will really help the show in the long run.

I don't know if I can buy Capaldi as the Doctor after him being so damned good at Malcolm Tucker.  I'll be expecting a torrent of profanity coming out of his mouth every time he's on screen.  Plus, will they make him Un-Scottish? 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: satael on August 02, 2013, 03:14:07 PM
I'll guess they'll pick Bill Bailey for the next doctor! :why_so_serious:  (I doubt anyone else would even think of that one...)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on August 03, 2013, 06:44:14 AM
For anyone who doesn't know about Peter Capaldi, he's best known as a character called Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It, the British version of Veep.

Malcolm Tucker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjAyazqtQj8 (Not work safe because of very bad language)

He appeared in The Fires of Pompeii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fires_of_Pompeii) as the father of the Roman family.

And he was civil servant John Frobisher in Torchwood: Children of Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torchwood:_Children_of_Earth), where I personally thought he was very good. To refresh your memory if you've seen it:


(http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/1580/0boj.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/849/0boj.jpg/)
Peter Capaldi in Torchwood.

I'm sure he could do it in an English accent but if they do cast him, I don't see why he couldn't play Doctor Who with a Scottish accent.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on August 03, 2013, 07:00:40 AM
It's not as if his accent is any stronger than Christopher Ecclestone's.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 03, 2013, 07:15:29 AM
I wouldn't be unhappy if they cast Capaldi--it's time for the Doctor to be older again, and I've liked him in what I've seen him in--but I do sort of wish they'd be ballsy enough to cast a non-white actor. I also don't mind a woman at all, except that I think Moffat would screw it up with a lot of the Doctor groping himself, etc.--the important thing, jokes about ginger or nose size aside, is that the Doctor be essentially somewhat unconcerned with his body. If he/she is non-white or a woman, it's really important that the character act like that's no big deal and that his companions more or less get on board with that right away. It would be especially tedious if the Doctor's adversaries spent two seasons saying stuff like, "The Doctor is a FE-MALE! EXTERMINATE" or "Ah, Doctor, so I see you have become a Negro! It will not save you from my tissue compactor!"


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 03, 2013, 07:24:24 AM
You all know Tennant is Scottish right ?  Some of the stuff you're saying here is just stupid, given that.

I mean, fucking Paisley accent.  If you can hide that, you can hide fucking Greek.


Actually, McCoy as well.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on August 03, 2013, 09:26:11 AM
I wouldn't be unhappy if they cast Capaldi--it's time for the Doctor to be older again, and I've liked him in what I've seen him in--but I do sort of wish they'd be ballsy enough to cast a non-white actor. I also don't mind a woman at all, except that I think Moffat would screw it up with a lot of the Doctor groping himself, etc.--the important thing, jokes about ginger or nose size aside, is that the Doctor be essentially somewhat unconcerned with his body. If he/she is non-white or a woman, it's really important that the character act like that's no big deal and that his companions more or less get on board with that right away. It would be especially tedious if the Doctor's adversaries spent two seasons saying stuff like, "The Doctor is a FE-MALE! EXTERMINATE" or "Ah, Doctor, so I see you have become a Negro! It will not save you from my tissue compactor!"

Unless they are human themselves, it wouldn't make sense for his adversaries to have the same bizarre superstitious fetish about skin tone as we do.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on August 03, 2013, 09:48:43 AM
Don't look at this spoiler if you hate them. 



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on August 03, 2013, 12:35:42 PM
I... what... why?

I'd be fine with Capaldi - it's time we got back to a Doctor that was a bit older. I'd also have no problem with Elba since he deserves any role he wants. But that spoiler? There's no fucking way that wanker Moffat doesn't fuck that up royally.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 03, 2013, 12:53:24 PM
Don't look at this spoiler if you hate them. 


I'd like that, mostly because it can't be worse than the entirety of Shite that got churned out through Smiths stuff.

That said, it sounds like pre-rumour shite.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lianka on August 03, 2013, 03:31:37 PM
You all know Tennant is Scottish right ?  Some of the stuff you're saying here is just stupid, given that.

I mean, fucking Paisley accent.  If you can hide that, you can hide fucking Greek.


Actually, McCoy as well.

I only mention it because they made a "Don't want to do a dlalectical tour of the UK" comment to justify Tennant not using his own accent.  I would have preferred him using his own.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 03, 2013, 06:20:45 PM
I wouldn't mind that spoiler if it was done right. I don't have a lot of confidence in Moffat to do it right. See "The Better Movie Metathread", e.g., I can see what I think ought to be done with that idea, I can think of people who would do it, and I don't think Moffat is one of them.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 04, 2013, 02:57:03 AM
Moffats moments of genuis float freely in a sea of squishy fecal matter.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: DraconianOne on August 04, 2013, 09:07:30 AM
Capaldi as The Doctor? Yeah, okay!

(Spoilered because NSFW)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 04, 2013, 10:18:12 AM
Ah, the poetry of the Scottish Language.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: DraconianOne on August 04, 2013, 12:46:37 PM
Two things:

1. I would not be at all surprised if Andrew Scott (Moriarty in the Moffatt/Gatiss incarnation of "Sherlock") gets the role.
2. I cannot believe it has got to the stage where there is an entire 30 minute program dedicated to the announcing of the next person in the role.  :geezer:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 04, 2013, 01:19:49 PM
They are reallllly dragging this shit out.  But they keep popping to Jenna, so I'm ok with it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 04, 2013, 01:27:27 PM
Ok, that'll do then.

Let's hope the writing's better.

Good Show.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: DraconianOne on August 04, 2013, 01:37:26 PM
Waste of half an hour but pleased that it's Capaldi.

Which reminds me, must buy season 4 of The Thick of It.

EDIT:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A6PWnC8CUAAwIOr.jpg:large)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on August 04, 2013, 02:22:56 PM
Congratulations on becoming the new Doctor, Ironwood.  :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Hayduke on August 04, 2013, 02:29:37 PM
Holy shit, Peter Capaldi is awesome.  Really thought it was a joke when I saw his name floated last week.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Soln on August 04, 2013, 10:33:09 PM
I'm fucking flabbergasted.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on August 05, 2013, 03:17:16 AM
They've already amply demonstrated that their casting department is far more highly skilled than their script editing department.

Capaldi is a good choice, but he's going to get the same stupid scripts & stories the rest of them had to suffer through.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 05, 2013, 03:26:25 AM
I fucking hope not.  There was nothing wrong with Matt.  The poor bastard just had to suffer through some real shit.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on August 05, 2013, 04:25:58 AM
Wanna take bets?  :awesome_for_real:

*cough*Moffat*cough*


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 05, 2013, 04:35:52 AM
No.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Shannow on August 05, 2013, 10:08:22 AM
Christ, the guy played a W.H.O Doctor in WWZ. How come I get the feeling there are ppl who orgasmed to that last night.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Malakili on August 05, 2013, 02:07:54 PM
Christ, the guy played a W.H.O Doctor in WWZ. How come I get the feeling there are ppl who orgasmed to that last night.

 :tinfoil: :tinfoil:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on August 05, 2013, 02:24:12 PM
So I've seen Capaldi in "In the Loop." Am I to understand there's a whole TV show about his character from that movie which I did not know about? Because that makes me happier in the pants than the idea of Moffat wanking words into Capaldi's mouth as the Doctor for three or four seasons.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 05, 2013, 02:29:42 PM
That's... a disturbing image.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on August 05, 2013, 05:42:04 PM
So I've seen Capaldi in "In the Loop." Am I to understand there's a whole TV show about his character from that movie which I did not know about? Because that makes me happier in the pants than the idea of Moffat wanking words into Capaldi's mouth as the Doctor for three or four seasons.

Yes.

Personally I think the show is funnier than the movie too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thick_of_It

Apparently it's all available on Netflix, if that's any help.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on August 05, 2013, 05:49:41 PM
The twelfth Doctor teaser trailer is now out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Blf073f2Lc

(NSFW due to shots of Jenna Louise Coleman)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on August 05, 2013, 06:18:52 PM
The Thick of It is available on Hulu in the US, but not Netflix.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 07, 2013, 09:47:28 AM
The twelfth Doctor teaser trailer is now out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Blf073f2Lc

(NSFW due to shots of Jenna Louise Coleman)

"What the fuck is this, tinker tailor soldier cunt?"   :drill:

Hopefully this will also get rid of the squeeling who fangirls for a bit.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on October 09, 2013, 06:21:06 PM
Speaking of probable disappointments, that rumours of someone finding 90 of the 'lost' episodes just refuses to die.
Hmm....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24448063
Quote
A number of early episodes of Doctor Who, which were believed to have been permanently lost, have been returned to the BBC.

BBC Worldwide is expected to confirm the find at a press screening in London later this week.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 10, 2013, 09:11:52 PM
Trailer for "The Web of Fear". Digital remaster looks really good.

http://io9.com/exclusive-trailer-for-the-newly-found-doctor-who-story-1443664254


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 19, 2013, 07:41:57 PM
"Day of the Doctor" trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loGm3vT8EAQ

Basically a souped-up teaser--no footage of the actual show.

I'm excited by the hint that Hurt's Doctor precedes all the others--I would MUCH rather that than him being a Time War incarnation who does bad things. It makes the whole character much more resonant if at the very beginning, he participates in something bad that his people do, and decides that whatever else happens, from that point on, he's going to do his best to heal the universe, make things better. That's pretty close to a Batman/Spiderman moment for the Doctor, and a good demonstration that you can just hint at an origin like that for years and years and years and then finally reap some dramatic goodies by going to it. Whereas if he's just a dude who went on a lark and then one day decided to end a really bad war by killing both sides, well, that's resonant, but not quite the same.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2013, 04:15:54 AM
You're projecting a lot here, unless you're reading stuff you ain't posting.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 20, 2013, 07:12:58 AM
Yeah, no doubt, because it's what I want. I was just thinking that putting him at the beginning like that, leading into 76 Totters Lane, seemed like an interesting move.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2013, 07:38:08 AM
I'd find it more interesting too.  But look what they did with his grave;  you thought it'd be interesting and it turned out retarded.  Same with his 'death'.  Best just wait and see really.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on October 20, 2013, 08:05:48 AM
I didn't see John Hurt in that at all? Unless that was him in the policeman's costume.

Where was Troughton? Was that him in silhouette playing his recorder (and about to encounter a Yeti perhaps)?

I'm pretty psyched for this because although it's going to be terrible in many ways, they are really playing on the nostalgia factor and as someone who watched Doctor Who as a child, it's a lot of fun. I can't imagine what the actual target audience will make of it. I really hope for the sake of the show that once Capaldi takes over they also decide to end the fan wank and get back to basics a bit.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 20, 2013, 08:07:00 AM
That was him in the policeman's outfit, yeah.

Troughton is in silhouette in front of the Himalayas (Yeti reference).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2013, 08:23:02 AM
Um, eh ?  That looked nothing like Hurt.

I'm confused now.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 20, 2013, 03:03:39 PM
Really? I think it looks very much like him (keeping in mind that everyone in the trailer except for Matt Smith and David Tennant is CGI).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on October 20, 2013, 04:32:05 PM
That was definitely Hurt in the beginning. I'm hoping Khaldun is right too as that would be a great way to go. But even if he is, Moffat will probably fuck it up anyway.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2013, 04:50:07 PM
 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: DraconianOne on October 20, 2013, 04:59:56 PM
That was him in the policeman's outfit, yeah.


No it wasn't. That was Reg Cranfield - the first actor to ever be seen in a Doctor Who episode where he played a policeman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIwjLrhBLsw).

(http://filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsC/tve48507-00000000-98.jpg)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on October 20, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
I stand corrected. Another hope dashed against the rocks.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 21, 2013, 03:24:09 AM
 :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 21, 2013, 08:22:46 AM
I dunno. A lot of people who've seen it think it's Hurt, too--since they're all CGI except for Smith, there isn't any way to be sure one way or the other.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 21, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
A - It looks nothing like Hurt to me, still.
B - In the episode where he appeared, he really, really looked like shit.  I mean, seriously old man beat up shit.  That copper, not so much.

But hey, it doesn't really matter in the long run.  We'll find out.  And then cringe.

IN SHAME.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 21, 2013, 10:19:43 AM
Keep in mind I have a long track record of being wrong about future plot directions in nuWho, too.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on October 21, 2013, 01:06:25 PM
That was him in the policeman's outfit, yeah.


No it wasn't. That was Reg Cranfield - the first actor to ever be seen in a Doctor Who episode where he played a policeman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIwjLrhBLsw).

(http://filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsC/tve48507-00000000-98.jpg)

Good find but even though that's him in the "pilot" I'm sure he can't be the guy who actually appeared An Unearthly Child (even though every website says he is). Take a look at the two pics here: http://www.aveleyman.com/ActorCredit.aspx?ActorID=48507 Is that the same guy?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 21, 2013, 01:44:05 PM
It's got a little weird in here.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Reg on October 21, 2013, 01:48:07 PM
Weird? Nahh. I think most of us have gotten used to you Dr Who purists by now.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on October 21, 2013, 02:14:18 PM
You all know this already, but of course "pilot" is the unaired version of An Unearthly Child, the first ever episode of Doctor Who, which they scrapped and reshot because it made the Doctor look too evil and Susan look too weird, among other things.

I'm saying that the policeman in the new trailer appears to have come from "pilot" and not the version actually aired, where the policeman appears to be played by a younger man with a fuller face.

Ie:

(http://imageshack.us/a/img12/1286/2uga.jpg)
Pilot

(http://imageshack.us/a/img28/1231/i4u4.jpg)
An Unearthly Child

(http://imageshack.us/a/img834/8800/whc3.jpg)
Trailer

(http://imageshack.us/a/img833/4238/8oiy.jpg)
Or it could be John Hurt after all for all I know


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: DraconianOne on October 21, 2013, 04:28:45 PM
I know nothing about the "pilot" episode. I know that the policeman at the start of Episode 1 is an iconic moment in Dr Who history. Applying Occam's Razor, it makes sense for that trailer to start with an image that harks back to that moment.

Also

It looks nothing like Hurt to me

From other recent publicity stills, I do think Hurt's Doctor is in the trailer if you look closely. And I also think that if you're wanting him to be anything other than something related to the Time War, you're going to be sorely disappointed. You're thinking like nerds, not like Moffat.

Yes, I've got a theory. It annoys me that I have because I don't even really care that much.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on October 23, 2013, 01:47:46 PM
There are lots of terrible fan-made title sequences floating around YouTube but I thought I'd flag up this one because it's really good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXOBHnWiinY


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on October 23, 2013, 03:32:25 PM
So for those of us who only ever watched Mr. Scarf in the 80s/ 90s and never really followed the lore:

What's up with this being the 12th Doctor? Is it over when this one decides he doesn't want to do it anymore or was there some hand-waving solution I missed in the past or during the Matt Smith era when I didn't have BBC America?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on October 23, 2013, 03:41:17 PM

I don't know a whole lot but from my understanding the Master has had more than 12 lives so I'm sure Moffat will do something to put Ironwood out of his misery.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: tazelbain on October 23, 2013, 03:45:51 PM
Anyone's guess how they will justify it, but Doctor will go on if the ratings do.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 23, 2013, 03:48:31 PM
It's an odd one, actually.  The Master had various schemes to 'steal' regenerations, so it's kinda like an energy that you can nick.

Further, not only has it been made clear explicitly that the Time Lords can 'grant' further regenerations, they've even done so for The Master.  That could just be Eye of Harmony stuff though, so won't work anymore, but who the fuck knows.

The bottom line has already been spoken :  if there's life in the show, it'll get timey-wimey and just be 'explained.'

And I'm ok with that.

Right now, of course, I'm hoping he just gets put out of his fucking misery.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on October 23, 2013, 04:20:16 PM
Right now, of course, I'm hoping he Moffat just gets put out of his our fucking misery.

Fixed that for you.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on October 23, 2013, 06:32:44 PM
It's an odd one, actually.  The Master had various schemes to 'steal' regenerations, so it's kinda like an energy that you can nick.

Further, not only has it been made clear explicitly that the Time Lords can 'grant' further regenerations, they've even done so for The Master.  That could just be Eye of Harmony stuff though, so won't work anymore, but who the fuck knows.

The bottom line has already been spoken :  if there's life in the show, it'll get timey-wimey and just be 'explained.'

And I'm ok with that.

Right now, of course, I'm hoping he just gets put out of his fucking misery.
The best explanation would be, of course, that the 'last' Doctor dies in a scene of great angst and drama...and then regenerates again. New doc stands up, looks around, says "Hmm. That's odd. Didn't expect that" and then carries on from there.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on November 10, 2013, 09:11:01 PM
New trailers are interesting.

Still holding out hope that Hurt is the first, not 8.5.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 11, 2013, 06:01:08 AM
New trailer is a bit spoilery and you might consider not watching, but if like me you have no willpower: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS1cNjJSGQs


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Special J on November 14, 2013, 06:40:29 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U3jrS-uhuo

Night of the Doctor mini-episode.  :awesome_for_real:

Won't say anything more. Spoilers and all.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on November 14, 2013, 06:49:52 AM
Oh well.

But I liked it, anyway.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 14, 2013, 07:14:44 AM
Kinda retarded, but actually I enjoyed the closure.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on November 14, 2013, 08:35:49 AM
Put that together with the Big Finish adventures and it makes you feel a bit sad about what might have been.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Special J on November 14, 2013, 08:37:55 AM
I know I'm using a spoiler tag for a video a few posts up but...


Put that together with the Big Finish adventures and it makes you feel a bit sad about what might have been.

I wish they could find some room for him to do a one-shot Christmas special or something.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 14, 2013, 08:48:08 AM
Put that together with the Big Finish adventures and it makes you feel a bit sad about what might have been.

As I said at the time, it wasn't the Actors fault.  Much like the current Doctor, the TV Movie was just utterly silly in so many ways.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on November 14, 2013, 08:51:18 AM
Yeah. Though he was the one good thing about it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on November 14, 2013, 02:29:04 PM
Not true.

(The TARDIS set was also gorgeous).



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on November 14, 2013, 10:04:50 PM
Good point.

On 2nd and 3rd viewing, I really like the mini-episode. A lot. Give Moffat some credit.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on November 14, 2013, 10:24:21 PM
That. Fucking. Rocked.

Seriously, the best thing Moffat's ever done, as far as I'm concerned.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 15, 2013, 03:28:45 AM
Blink was the best thing he ever did.

This doesn't work for me because it throws every bit of history away with a one liner.  I will agree however, that it's hard to sell in a six minute bit, so it works within the constraint of the medium.  But I'm glad (no sarcasm) that it's working for the new legion of fans.  Good.  I continue to hope that the Episode itself contains as much PROPER fan service as that short did.  It worked wonderfully well for that.

It's giving a LOT of people heart attacks as they are forced to renumber the Doctors tho.

 :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 15, 2013, 07:20:00 AM
I think I now understand what it means to squee for the first time in my life.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on November 15, 2013, 10:33:22 AM
I did like it... and it certainly makes me wish we'd gotten McGann as a proper Doctor with proper shows.

But I'm kind of with Ironwood on this one. I'm also just totally not sure that Moffat is the man to go back over the "Time War Doctor" and do it any fucking justice whatsoever.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on November 15, 2013, 11:45:04 AM
Blink was the best thing he ever did.

This doesn't work for me because it throws every bit of history away with a one liner.  I will agree however, that it's hard to sell in a six minute bit, so it works within the constraint of the medium.  But I'm glad (no sarcasm) that it's working for the new legion of fans.  Good.  I continue to hope that the Episode itself contains as much PROPER fan service as that short did.  It worked wonderfully well for that.

It's giving a LOT of people heart attacks as they are forced to renumber the Doctors tho.

 :grin:

I stand corrected by the pissy Scotsman again. Blink was indeed the best thing he did. I guess I still think of that as a Davies thing since he was show runner.

That said though, this was a solid bit of fan wankage.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 15, 2013, 01:10:31 PM
It was a fantastic bit of fan wankage. There's lots of complaining I could do about the story Moffat is telling but I've decided the best approach for me is just to enjoy it as best I can and try to ignore the stuff I don't like.

But as far as all the "Doctor" stuff goes, here's a clip of Patrick Troughton being awesome (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0EO2C3CmA).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on November 15, 2013, 05:34:39 PM
It really stands up on repeated viewings. It's a really great little segment in its own right, but also a terrific salute to the show's complicated history. It gives me good feelings about next week.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lianka on November 15, 2013, 05:51:02 PM
Speaking of next week, anyone have any idea where this is going to air outside of theatres and BBC-affiliated stations?  I'm cable-less, rely on Hulu/Netflix/Amazon for TV, and I'm not going to be able to make it out to a theatre.  :(    Did previous recently-aired episodes make it on to any of those three streaming services shortly after airing? 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Special J on November 15, 2013, 11:02:49 PM
Cable-less too. Not having much luck finding out when affiliates are making it available online. Space Channel is the Canadian affiliate and always had new episodes up online but never knew exactly when the became available.

At the office we actually have a small theater and a few of us plan on sneaking in and hooking up a cable box.  :drill:


If anyone cares, here's the aforementioned Halloween costume:

http://specialj99.tumblr.com/post/65613864286


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Father mike on November 15, 2013, 11:03:38 PM
Speaking of next week, anyone have any idea where this is going to air outside of theatres and BBC-affiliated stations?  I'm cable-less, rely on Hulu/Netflix/Amazon for TV, and I'm not going to be able to make it out to a theatre.  :(    Did previous recently-aired episodes make it on to any of those three streaming services shortly after airing? 

Amazon Prime gets regular episodes within 24 hrs of them being on BBC America, to buy for $1.99 - no streaming (if I'm remembering right).  No idea about specials like this tho ...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on November 16, 2013, 01:17:37 AM
I enjoyed the short, but I'm a bit confused.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 16, 2013, 07:57:54 AM
I enjoyed the short, but I'm a bit confused.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on November 17, 2013, 03:57:52 PM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on November 18, 2013, 03:14:17 AM
The 'War Doctor', seriously, that's his name?



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 18, 2013, 03:41:11 AM
Don't even.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ubvman on November 18, 2013, 04:03:42 AM
Nice 8th Doctor closure.

I would love it if they managed to bring back Chris Eccleston also so that the 50th anniversary would be a complete post 2005 reunion. Rumor has it that Eccleston got along poorly with Moffat, the producers and the BBC money-men which makes it highly unlikely that he will show up in any capacity. Oh well.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 18, 2013, 04:31:18 AM
Chris was before Moffat.

He released a statement at the time saying that he had particular problems with some of the Directors of the episodes and the way in which Who was being run at the time.  Much like now (when it's worse), it was being run on a shoestring with middle-management being cunts and certain Directors being utter fucking arseholes to people.

He has a ... certain personality and it just didn't work for him.  (I understand his view completely).  So he walked.

In those circumstances, walking BACK is never an option, alas. 

So while I'd like to blame Moffat, he's not responsible for all the ills in the world.  The Cunt.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on November 18, 2013, 06:51:38 PM
Rumour has it that a couple of the specific middle-managers that pissed Eccleston off were the same ones who fucked up the budget and pissed off a bunch of other BBC people a couple of years ago, leading to the current working conditions (shoestring budget, lack of co-operation with other departments/regions, and so on).

They don't work on Doctor Who any more. Or for the BBC, for that matter.

In brighter news, An Adventure in Space and Time looks interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEwikIhEZrE
(And there's a couple of shots in that of David Bradley as Bill Hartnell as the Doctor which are just uncanny).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on November 18, 2013, 07:04:44 PM
I'll forever give Moffat a pass because of "Blink," "Empty Child," and "Silence in the Library 1&2."

Mostly for Blink though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 23, 2013, 04:14:37 AM
Adventures in Space and Time was really, really, really good.  And very interesting.  Like most 'lookbacks' it took some liberty with Truth and there was one guest appearance that shrivelled my balls, but I really reccomend a watch.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on November 23, 2013, 02:02:35 PM
A fun quiz on which of the doctors you are.

http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2013/11/personality-quiz-doctor/

I got the First Doctor.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Numtini on November 23, 2013, 03:12:38 PM
Moffat knocked that one out of the park.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Malakili on November 23, 2013, 03:19:57 PM
Episode was overall pretty neat.

My only problem was:



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on November 23, 2013, 03:26:23 PM
To get in before the nitpickers: That was fun.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Threash on November 23, 2013, 03:36:59 PM
That was great.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on November 23, 2013, 03:37:15 PM
I enjoyed that a lot more than I should have since I'm not a huge fan.  The cameo was fantastic, and really got me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Threash on November 23, 2013, 04:03:19 PM
Someone explain the "70's or 80s, depending on the dating scheme" joke to me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Numtini on November 23, 2013, 04:15:50 PM
I enjoyed that a lot more than I should have since I'm not a huge fan.  The cameo was fantastic, and really got me.

Didn't recognize him at first and then the tears started to flow.

Fuck JFK, that's MY nostalgia fix for the week.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 23, 2013, 04:45:20 PM
Well, he tried really, really hard.

Apart from the one enormous plot hole, that was fairly enjoyable.

Especially the rabbit.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: MediumHigh on November 23, 2013, 04:53:24 PM
A fun quiz on which of the doctors you are.

http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2013/11/personality-quiz-doctor/

I got the First Doctor.  :oh_i_see:

9th Doctor  :drill:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on November 23, 2013, 06:05:33 PM
Someone explain the "70's or 80s, depending on the dating scheme" joke to me.
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/UNIT_dating_controversy


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: sigil on November 23, 2013, 07:49:10 PM
A fun quiz on which of the doctors you are.

http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2013/11/personality-quiz-doctor/

I got the First Doctor.  :oh_i_see:

9th Doctor  :drill:
10th doctor, which made the girlfriend a bit swoony.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on November 23, 2013, 07:57:48 PM
I liked it a good deal, even though it had some of Moffat's characteristic issues. I think I usually like where he wants his characters to be emotionally, it's just that he has a way of building plots that don't always work in order to get them there.

Hurt was great. Moffat even poked a bit of fun at himself through Hurt.

I think I can figure out how this episode actually even makes good canonical sense but there is a big gun on the mantlepiece that is going to need firing in Capaldi's season.

So ok:



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: JWIV on November 23, 2013, 09:20:23 PM
A fun quiz on which of the doctors you are.

http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2013/11/personality-quiz-doctor/

I got the First Doctor.  :oh_i_see:

9th Doctor  :drill:
10th doctor, which made the girlfriend a bit swoony.

1st doctor for me as well.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on November 24, 2013, 01:25:29 AM
Anyone else get the feeling that Moffat intentionally made the bad guys look like people in big goofy rubber suits, just for the throwback's sake.

Part way through I wasn't sure it was going to live up to my expectations, but it managed it by the end. The surprise cameo was just that one extra thing they needed.


On a side note - in the scene in the gallery where the statues are covered in sheets - for a moment when they showed the statues toppling, I thought that maybe they were Weeping Angels under the sheets. Then I thought - if a Weeping Angel has a sheet over its head, could it move while you looked at that sheet?...

I'm glad they weren't Angels.  Also glad they didn't mess with the end of Rose's plot line, like I was worried they would when I heard Piper was in this. The nod to Bad Wolf was awesome though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: MahrinSkel on November 24, 2013, 02:17:40 AM
That was simply awesome, at every level.


--Dave


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 24, 2013, 02:53:16 AM
No.

Edited to Add :

I would advise you all not to think about it after you've enjoyed it.  If you do, it begins to Moffatmetastasize. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on November 24, 2013, 05:25:44 AM
Have you watched "The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot" yet, Ironwood?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on November 24, 2013, 09:26:02 AM




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on November 24, 2013, 11:08:09 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on November 24, 2013, 11:58:37 AM
I'm 11, one of the doctor's in which I've seen hardly any episodes.  I think I mostly saw reruns of Tom Baker and started watching them live (well, live-ish) mid Peter Davidson and skipped most until Tennant.   I'm pretty sure David Tennant is the only one that I've seen nearly all of.  I started watching his because I loved him in Duck Patrol.  Now that I've been labeled Doctor 11, and in light of the fact that I really enjoyed this new episode, I'm looking forward to watching the new series.  Tonight they're showing some sort of Matt Smith marathon so I'll watch some of those, too.  I'm pretty sure Doctor 11 is some sort of default for people who are nothing like any of the doctors.  They should just have a Doctor 0 result.  That makes more sense for me.  F13 always makes me feel so inadequate! 



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Hayduke on November 24, 2013, 01:51:00 PM
Thought it was a pretty great special.  It was really nice that they limited the bloviating puffery to that one rabbit scene.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on November 24, 2013, 01:54:13 PM

I got the 10th Doctor. In related news  I now get that joke: Tennant is Scottish.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: CmdrSlack on November 24, 2013, 03:31:39 PM
I have avoided spoilers on this show. I am up to the second Doctor on the modern series. So, I think season 2? How many hours of Netflix binging do I have before the newest season?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on November 24, 2013, 04:07:16 PM
Its been running since 2005 this run and you're at 2006.  So about 72, if you're finished with the 2nd season.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on November 24, 2013, 09:58:43 PM


Doctor 1 - which is oddly the one I've seen the least episodes of. I think I've watched just about every one available after Two, though I've never had the nerve to watch the one off one.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 25, 2013, 06:20:09 AM
You musn't turn away, you can't even look away, and above all, don't THINK.  If you THINK, it's DEAD.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on November 25, 2013, 07:03:25 AM
I don't mind thinking about the changes to the emotional mood of the current series, if not the specifics of the plot.

Another interesting thing I realized on second watch:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Numtini on November 25, 2013, 07:12:55 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 25, 2013, 07:14:40 AM
Ambivalence towards Genocide has always been part of his trait tho.  

While I understand exactly what you're saying, you can see how it's ingrained in his character.  That said, it's been clear after the Time-War that he DOESN'T give a shit about the Daleks (see Eccleston in Dalek for an excellent example).  Even then, though, his attitude was changed to the Dalek as he was forced to realise what he DID.  It doesn't matter how Awful the people are or how Much They Need To Be Stopped, it's the act of doing that's important and how it changes YOU.

That was starkly clear from Day of the Doctor because of how they distanced themselves from The War Doctor and also due to the fact that it's fairly clear that a crossfire scenario would have left Daleks alive in a way that The Moment would NOT have.

Anyway.


Edit :  Yeah, what Numtini Said.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on November 25, 2013, 10:04:38 AM
I really want to watch a whole season of the John Hurt doctor.

Was pleasantly surprised by the special - when it became clear they weren't going to press the button I was practically hiding behind the sofa in fear of the bullshit Moffatt had planned. But it all worked out ok.

Particularly enjoyed how they provided an in character explanation for the Doctor being too damn young since it restarted.

(the 2nd Doctor)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 25, 2013, 10:05:49 AM
I really want to see a whole season of McGann.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 25, 2013, 10:23:01 AM
I really want to see a whole season of McGann.

I endorse this.

One thing I really liked about the mini-episode was the way they used the character as it has developed in the audio plays, which has become a lot more interesting than the one that appeared in the McGann TV movie.

Maybe they could do an animated series or something.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 25, 2013, 11:51:13 AM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 25, 2013, 12:34:05 PM
Wat ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 25, 2013, 12:35:06 PM



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 25, 2013, 02:09:06 PM
Played by Angry Scottish Eyebrows.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 25, 2013, 02:36:58 PM



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Velorath on November 25, 2013, 05:01:48 PM


Also in addition to wanting to see more of McGann and Hurt, I wouldn't mind seeing them use David Bradley as the First Doctor in some episodes as well.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on November 25, 2013, 06:23:41 PM
I'm sorry, did someone just post that Moffet had said you can't casually break rules in science fiction? Seriously?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 25, 2013, 06:53:38 PM


Also in addition to wanting to see more of McGann and Hurt, I wouldn't mind seeing them use David Bradley as the First Doctor in some episodes as well.

Warning - this is an actual spoiler for a future episode:



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 25, 2013, 07:01:54 PM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Threash on November 25, 2013, 07:07:13 PM


Also in addition to wanting to see more of McGann and Hurt, I wouldn't mind seeing them use David Bradley as the First Doctor in some episodes as well.

Warning - this is an actual spoiler for a future episode:




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on November 25, 2013, 08:12:09 PM
Sisterhood of Karn has already clearly lit the way for an escape hatch though.

On Moffat, if you've watched "The Five Doctors Reboot(ish)" you'll see that he knows pretty much everything that folks who don't like him think of him and doesn't give a shit.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Special J on November 25, 2013, 09:36:55 PM
Well finally saw it, and enjoyed it very much. John Hurt was great, Tennant didn't miss a step and Matt Smith, well he did his thing as usual and love him or hate him, it won't change your opinion.  Even Rose was worked into it well.  Lots of fanservice, but didn't find myself annoyed by it.


Oh, and Five-ish Doctors is hilarious.

Test says I'm the 3rd Doctor. Score.




Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 25, 2013, 10:01:18 PM
Not really sure where this "Moffat needs to go" comes from. Hes given life to this show.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on November 25, 2013, 10:37:51 PM
Because he's a one-trick pony and that truck has worn thin.

Fourth Doctor, by the way.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 26, 2013, 03:34:34 AM
Not really sure where this "Moffat needs to go" comes from. Hes given life to this show.

So did Dr Frankenstein.  Thing still terrorised the village.

Also, stop poking the tiger for the sake of it.  Either read the fucking thread or don't.  We have enough shit trolls about at the moment.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 26, 2013, 03:36:20 AM
Sisterhood of Karn has already clearly lit the way for an escape hatch though.

Yeah, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Regenerations Rule is already extremely broken even in pre-reboot continuity.  There are SOOOooooo many 'outs' it's not real.

Which is why it's ok for the Doctor to Die at Trenzalore, because he doesn't really die, yadda, fucking yadda.

Same shit is coming that they did with that utter cop-out of him getting shot at the lake.  It's almost inevitable at this stage.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Velorath on November 26, 2013, 05:20:28 AM
Wishful thinking on my part but I'd rather they just let the character die after Doctor 13 and just pass the mantle of the Doctor onto someone else. Let the character have some closure and with someone new you could probably do some race and gender swaps for regenerations and not have it be as out of place as it would seem with a Time Lord who has consistently regenerated as a white male.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 26, 2013, 05:25:04 AM
The UK would string you up for heresy.

Seriously.

I'm a reasonable guy about Dr Who and I feel my palms itching at the mere suggestion.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Velorath on November 26, 2013, 05:52:19 AM
If it makes the UK feel any better, I'd be perfectly fine with Superman, Batman, and Spider-man all taking a permanent dirt nap as well.  Keeping a character going just out of tradition regardless of quality is how Doctor Who wore out his welcome the first time around.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 26, 2013, 07:20:57 AM
They could take a few years off and then come back with a new team perhaps.

My problem with the show at the moment is the constant focus on the Doctor and his backstory and the show's mythology. For me, it shouldn't be about how an event in episode 4:12 ties in with the show's mythology and let's explore that five years later in a story which is all about what it's like being the Doctor who is a Timelord and 1200 years old.

I've enjoyed stories where the Doctor gets emotional, like the whole Rose romance or discovering he's not the only Timelord after all (but the other Timelord is his arch enemy, on noes!). But the Doctor's personal story isn't really enough to sustain the show on its own in my view, especially when they are bound up with bizarre and convoluted stuff like Trenzalor. When Tennant *nearly* told Rose he loved her before losing her forever (so it seemed), it was sad. When Matt Smith gets upset about hearing the word Trenzalor it doesn't move me.

What Doctor Who needs as well as the Doctor is for him and his companions to go off to interesting places and meeting new people and discovering new situations, possibly with a monster. And it can't be a place which is only really interesting because it's Gallifrey or the site of the Doctor's grave or whatever. It has to have a bit of a story. Modern day earth works perfetly well as long as it has a story, eg it is being invaded by aliens (but not if the story is just that a strange artifact from the Doctor's past has appeared, that's rubbish). RTD's Who gave us interesting stories all the time.

That's my take on it. Also, it would be good if he could run through the streets of Paris holding hands with a young Lalla Ward too.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 26, 2013, 09:06:03 AM
Yes, I agree, but Moffat likes to play in the muck.  He's touching that shite because he can and he knows it irritates most people.

As you can see with His Constant Need to Put The Line "Doctor Who" into his fucking episodes.

Asshole.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on November 26, 2013, 10:34:59 AM
Well, he tried really, really hard.

Apart from the one enormous plot hole, that was fairly enjoyable.

Especially the rabbit.


I loved it right up until



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 26, 2013, 11:00:45 AM
That would be the plot hole I mentioned, yeah.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 27, 2013, 12:34:48 PM
Not really sure where this "Moffat needs to go" comes from. Hes given life to this show.

So did Dr Frankenstein.  Thing still terrorised the village.

Also, stop poking the tiger for the sake of it.  Either read the fucking thread or don't.  We have enough shit trolls about at the moment.


Wasn't a troll. With out Moffit, the series would not be as popular as it is. I Basically completely disagree with your assessment of his contribution to keeping Who Relevant. The reboot has been the best who. An incredibly fun show to watch.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 27, 2013, 01:04:51 PM
I'm not saying this is a mark of quality but ratings for the last full season (seven (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(series_7))) were actually slightly down compared to the final full RTD season (four (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(series_4))). Eg, only the opening episode and the Christmas special got above nine million, while in Season Four there were three episodes plus the Christmas special above nine million.

There may be all sorts of reasons for that and I'm sure it's fair to say that the time had come for a new showrunner but there was no sign the show as in trouble before Moffat took over.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 27, 2013, 01:20:13 PM
I'm not saying this is a mark of quality but ratings for the last full season (seven (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(series_7))) were actually slightly down compared to the final full RTD season (four (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(series_4))). Eg, only the opening episode and the Christmas special got above nine million, while in Season Four there were three episodes plus the Christmas special above nine million.

There may be all sorts of reasons for that and I'm sure it's fair to say that the time had come for a new showrunner but there was no sign the show as in trouble before Moffat took over.

He was a writer on those sessions too. AFAIK, its a team effort.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: slog on November 27, 2013, 01:43:09 PM
I used to watch the black and white reruns on PBS in the mid 70's.  After 4 decades, I find I don't care so much about plot holes and changing the rules. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 27, 2013, 01:44:13 PM
We all agree I think that Moffat wrote some of the best episodes of the RTD era but when some of us complain about his leadership of the show we're talking about the period since he took over.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 27, 2013, 01:56:15 PM
Which Bloodworth would know if he'd fucking read anything.

We don't just sit and shout abuse like fucking tramps.  For my part, I've laid out time and time again why Moffat is just so very WRONG for this job.  Saying 'I don't know where this comes from' is just a whole big 'I disagree with what you said' without any of the cleverness.

And we've already fucking admitted (Upfront and AT THE TIME) that his earlier writings were some of the best.  I can't pass 'Blink' without watching.  It's the retardery that happened to his writing once he was in charge that's offensive.

Call it Lucas Syndrome.

Which you KNOW BECAUSE WE'VE SAID THIS SO OFTEN.

Well done.  Troll succesful.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Hayduke on November 27, 2013, 04:49:24 PM
Can confirm.  Moffat's failings have been discussed ad nauseam.  Read the thread.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 27, 2013, 04:51:31 PM
Day of the Doctor was ok.

Just to reiterate.  Worth a watch.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Velorath on November 27, 2013, 05:03:47 PM
Did some pretty crazy numbers in the theaters also from what I've read.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on November 27, 2013, 08:06:28 PM
It ranked second in the US for weekend box office.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on November 28, 2013, 04:01:10 PM
Not really sure where this "Moffat needs to go" comes from. Hes given life to this show.

So did Dr Frankenstein.  Thing still terrorised the village.
Actually the "monster" was the victim of the piece and the torch-wielding villagers Were The Real Monster.
But whatever.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on November 28, 2013, 04:17:19 PM
Like my critique of Moffat, nothing I wrote was factually incorrect.  Sure, it wasn't his fault he terrorised the village, but it's what happens.

Much like when another season of Moffat Who comes out and THE DOCTOR MIGHT DIE IN THE FINAL EPISODE OMG.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: sickrubik on December 03, 2013, 02:59:52 PM
SO, I'm COMPLETELY IGNORING THIS THREAD to avoid spoilers. The fiancee and I have only been able to watch up through the Christmas Special from last year. The second half of Season 7 does not seem to be streaming anywhere (including Prime or Hulu Plus). Does anyone have suggestions were we might be able to watch it?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Johny Cee on December 03, 2013, 03:57:21 PM
SO, I'm COMPLETELY IGNORING THIS THREAD to avoid spoilers. The fiancee and I have only been able to watch up through the Christmas Special from last year. The second half of Season 7 does not seem to be streaming anywhere (including Prime or Hulu Plus). Does anyone have suggestions were we might be able to watch it?

If you wait a bit it will be on Prime.  They've had all the Nu-Who in reasonable times after airing, though that might be another six months.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: sickrubik on December 03, 2013, 06:02:59 PM
SO, I'm COMPLETELY IGNORING THIS THREAD to avoid spoilers. The fiancee and I have only been able to watch up through the Christmas Special from last year. The second half of Season 7 does not seem to be streaming anywhere (including Prime or Hulu Plus). Does anyone have suggestions were we might be able to watch it?

If you wait a bit it will be on Prime.  They've had all the Nu-Who in reasonable times after airing, though that might be another six months.

The first episode from 7.2 aired on March 30. Prime/Hulu have had 7.1 for awhile, but 7.2 is languishing in getting up on either. Apparently in November they were available briefly on Hulu Plus by mistake but got yanked. In fact, when browsing Hulu Plus, it will list "14" next to Season 7, but when you click on it, only through the Christmas Episode is available.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lianka on December 04, 2013, 02:27:06 AM
SO, I'm COMPLETELY IGNORING THIS THREAD to avoid spoilers. The fiancee and I have only been able to watch up through the Christmas Special from last year. The second half of Season 7 does not seem to be streaming anywhere (including Prime or Hulu Plus). Does anyone have suggestions were we might be able to watch it?

If you wait a bit it will be on Prime.  They've had all the Nu-Who in reasonable times after airing, though that might be another six months.

I see it on Amazon Instant Video right now, just not free..


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 04, 2013, 03:21:42 AM
Fuck it, I've paid for it with my TV Licence fee ;  you have my fucking permission to pirate that shite.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Johny Cee on December 04, 2013, 06:15:28 PM
SO, I'm COMPLETELY IGNORING THIS THREAD to avoid spoilers. The fiancee and I have only been able to watch up through the Christmas Special from last year. The second half of Season 7 does not seem to be streaming anywhere (including Prime or Hulu Plus). Does anyone have suggestions were we might be able to watch it?

If you wait a bit it will be on Prime.  They've had all the Nu-Who in reasonable times after airing, though that might be another six months.

I see it on Amazon Instant Video right now, just not free..

Prime will lag because it's free, but all the other Nu-Who seasons have been on within usually six months to a year after broadcast.  If you can wait, you don't have to pay.  The 50th was really expensive as well to purchase through Instant Video (~$5 rather than ~$2).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: sickrubik on December 05, 2013, 12:49:25 AM
Prime is not free.

Fuck it, I've paid for it with my TV Licence fee ;  you have my fucking permission to pirate that shite.


Honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start with that these days.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Samwise on December 11, 2013, 08:29:25 PM
Finally watched this.  I enjoyed how the one guy made fun of stupid shit the current Doctor does, and at the same time I wanted to say JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE LAMPSHADING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT OKAY, MOFFAT.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 12, 2013, 09:56:12 AM
Yeah, but that's why he said it.  It was a great big 'I KNOW WHAT I DO, FUCK YOU IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM I'M STEVEN MOFFAT  I INVENTED THE BBC.'

Which will be hilarious when he gets kicked to the curb.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on December 12, 2013, 01:29:01 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if he walks at the end of the next series - he would have basically done everything he wanted to do by that point (turn the Doctor back into a mysterious meddler, brought back Gallifrey, fixed the regeneration limit).

And then people can move on to blaming everything on the new guy and saying "Moffat wasn't so bad".


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on December 12, 2013, 01:40:39 PM
And then people can move on to blaming everything on the new guy and saying "Moffat wasn't so bad".

You paint the picture of a horrible future.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 12, 2013, 02:01:26 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if he walks at the end of the next series - he would have basically done everything he wanted to do by that point (turn the Doctor back into a mysterious meddler, brought back Gallifrey, fixed the regeneration limit).

And then people can move on to blaming everything on the new guy and saying "Moffat wasn't so bad".

None of those things are true.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on December 13, 2013, 12:44:27 PM
I'm Rick James Steven Moffat, bitch!

Fuck yo' TARDIS!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Furiously on December 18, 2013, 12:56:38 AM
Matt Smith leaving without ever having had a full season of worthwhile scripts is a goddamn shame. He did a spectacular job with complete and utter nothing to work with. He (and the hotness that was Amy Pond and is Clara) were the only reasons I kept watching through the Moffatry.

She is cute as a button... I thought the Vincent van Gogh episode might have been one of the best Who endings ever.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: JWIV on December 22, 2013, 10:27:21 PM
A friend of mine did some prints of a personal project he did and I grabbed one off of him and framed it. I'm really sorta in love with it.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-cTRFlz6LD34/UreDx5AHn4I/AAAAAAAAeYw/Zq75BjeMtuQ/s640/13%2520-%25201.jpg)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Setanta on December 23, 2013, 05:26:31 AM
Finally watched DoTD. It was worth the money I paid for the DVD but I can't see myself watching it again. The script was servicable, Tennant was The Doctor, Smith did a fine job too as did Hurt. The eye-candy was... eye candy but the re-writing of The Time War left me cold. Fuck it, that's what made Ecclestone's version of The Doctor so enjoyable to watch in a sea of mediocre effects and (some) average scripts, the unspoken rage at what he had done.

Things I would like to have seen:
Jack Harkness (because awesome)
Not Billie Piper. I get that they used her as a different character but it felt like a sop to the fans. I loved Rose as a character but that wasn't enough to bring her back.
Less Tom Baker. It was good to see him but the subtlety became a sledge hammer.
A tiny bit more of the earlier Doctors - it was great to see some of the earliest there but more would have been good given stand ins/CGI.

Which the closing credits reminded me that that I've been watching the show since Jon Pertwee was The Doctor and how upset I was when he regenerated into Tom Baker. Amazing how first impressions can go astray. I also remembered going to the movies to see re-runs of Peter Cushing as The Doctor  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on December 24, 2013, 03:17:38 PM
A friend of mine did some prints of a personal project he did and I grabbed one off of him and framed it. I'm really sorta in love with it.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-cTRFlz6LD34/UreDx5AHn4I/AAAAAAAAeYw/Zq75BjeMtuQ/s640/13%2520-%25201.jpg)
What, no Capaldi?  :oh_i_see:

Finally watched DoTD. It was worth the money I paid for the DVD but I can't see myself watching it again. The script was servicable, Tennant was The Doctor, Smith did a fine job too as did Hurt. The eye-candy was... eye candy but the re-writing of The Time War left me cold. Fuck it, that's what made Ecclestone's version of The Doctor so enjoyable to watch in a sea of mediocre effects and (some) average scripts, the unspoken rage at what he had done.

Things I would like to have seen:
Jack Harkness (because awesome)
Not Billie Piper. I get that they used her as a different character but it felt like a sop to the fans. I loved Rose as a character but that wasn't enough to bring her back.
Less Tom Baker. It was good to see him but the subtlety became a sledge hammer.
A tiny bit more of the earlier Doctors - it was great to see some of the earliest there but more would have been good given stand ins/CGI.

Which the closing credits reminded me that that I've been watching the show since Jon Pertwee was The Doctor and how upset I was when he regenerated into Tom Baker. Amazing how first impressions can go astray. I also remembered going to the movies to see re-runs of Peter Cushing as The Doctor  :ye_gods:
You're old  :-P

(I remember Tom Baker regenerating into Peter Davison)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 25, 2013, 01:53:25 PM
Oh For Fucks Sake Moffat.  You have a problem.  Get help.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on December 25, 2013, 02:10:00 PM
Well now I can't wait to watch it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on December 25, 2013, 09:01:50 PM
No matter how low my expectations, Moffat comes in under them.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: JWIV on December 25, 2013, 10:57:30 PM
Excited to see what Capaldi can do, but that was a shit show of a Christmas episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on December 26, 2013, 09:17:56 AM
What a completely underwhelming and awful way of resolving the regen problem.  I expected little and got less.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on December 26, 2013, 01:12:12 PM
I still think that "This is the end...wait, why am I regenerating?" would have been a better way to do it but it was pretty obvious since the 50th that the Time Lords were always going to give the Doc more regenerations if needed because he's the only one that a) knows they're not dead and b) could bring them all back.

And it's not like "Time Lords can give a new cycle" was made up from whole cloth either - it's been thrown about for literally decades now.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on December 26, 2013, 01:23:45 PM
Hell, the Master has been technically out of regenerations since around the Sixth doctors time. A lot of his storylines after that involved his decaying body trying to steal more regenerations, and then there was Eric "this human body will not last long" Roberts in the McGann TV movie.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on December 26, 2013, 01:34:25 PM
Yeah and the Time Lords gave him a new cycle for the Time War, to boot.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Hayduke on December 26, 2013, 01:50:09 PM
This was so disappointing.  Especially after the 50th anniversary special.  I don't really care about the regenerations limit at all.  The episode was just dumb.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 26, 2013, 03:01:32 PM
Yuuuuup.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on December 26, 2013, 04:48:53 PM
This was so disappointing.  Especially after the 50th anniversary special.  I don't really care about the regenerations limit at all.  The episode was just dumb.

After realizing it was going to be a terrible, "The Doctor gets old and dies" plot, I was hoping for some redemption in the fix or the actual regeneration scene.  We were rewarded with neither.  "Oh hey, here, have a regen. We can send that through but not ourselves/ probes/ whatever else."

Then the regen scene was all of 25 seconds.  Whoopee.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on December 27, 2013, 01:03:28 PM
There was the most amazing bit of fanwank in the SA thread today:
So the 11th Doc was actually 13th regeneration.
Therefore that means Tennant was the 12th (and 11th).
Which means that the Metacrisis, half-human hand-Doctor was, oh, what's the phrase? "somewhere between the twelfth and thirteenth incarnation".
(Long-time fans are now going :facepalm: pre-emptively)  :oh_i_see:

So, picture it: Trapped in a parallel universe, no TARDIS, bitterly staring down his final death, outliving Rose...it might drive a person to extremes. Maybe even enough to come up with a plan so desperate he had to stop being the Doctor to carry it out, and chose a new title instead.

Like, say, the Valeyard.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: MahrinSkel on December 27, 2013, 09:16:17 PM
There's also the daughter/clone running around out there.

--Dave


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on December 27, 2013, 10:48:58 PM
And Romana, who stayed in another pocket universe and so is technically not in the Universe for the Doc to feel that she is there, and who probably was not involved in the war either.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on December 28, 2013, 08:30:05 AM
All the trapped Time Lords are able to return to the universe at any point in time or space of their choosing and the only thing stopping them is they're waiting for the Doctor to tell them it's a good moment. So all that stuff about Romana seems a bit moot now, as does all that moping around the Doctor did from 2005 to 2010.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on December 28, 2013, 05:31:44 PM
Holy shit that was bad.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on December 28, 2013, 06:07:21 PM
I am willing to defend some of Moffat's general writing and some of his specific scripts but not that one. Bad. Practically a instructional manual on the consequences of writing yourself into a corner--the desperate need to tidy up all the dangling plot lines and pretend that there had been something remotely like an idea behind them was horribly destructive to any semblance of storytelling.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on December 29, 2013, 01:07:52 AM
All the trapped Time Lords are able to return to the universe at any point in time or space of their choosing and the only thing stopping them is they're waiting for the Doctor to tell them it's a good moment. So all that stuff about Romana seems a bit moot now, as does all that moping around the Doctor did from 2005 to 2010.

Ok. You win. *Slits wrists*


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Special J on December 29, 2013, 10:33:29 PM
What a completely underwhelming and awful way of resolving the regen problem.  I expected little and got less.

Yeah, felt the same. I think I would have preferred having no answer. Have Smith go in thinking it was the end and *poof* Peter Capaldi goes "well, this is a surprise."

Really liked the 50th special, but this was just flat. Disappointed

Edit: is it wrong that after one episode I liked Handles more than most of the Nuwho companions?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on December 29, 2013, 11:03:38 PM
I liked Handles as well.

I was surprised there was no lizard lady in this one.

I didn't hate it as much as you lot. I still question the rationale of Church splinter group
Does every Who actor write their last lines or something?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on December 30, 2013, 08:45:38 AM
All the trapped Time Lords are able to return to the universe at any point in time or space of their choosing and the only thing stopping them is they're waiting for the Doctor to tell them it's a good moment. So all that stuff about Romana seems a bit moot now, as does all that moping around the Doctor did from 2005 to 2010.

I don't want to defend this episode (it was bad on many levels) but I had the impression that they needed that crack between universes to return, and didn't really get to choose where it appeared. Yea sure, I'll go with that.

For some reason it ticked me off that he managed to add another 300 plus years to the doctor's life in one episode. I won't even get in to the planet that apparently had one town on its surface and vegetation that grew with six minutes of sunlight per day.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 30, 2013, 09:30:18 AM
You know, if you'd just listen to Moffat you'd at least be able to make your minds up properly.

He's said it again and again :  Dr Who is a Fairy Tale to him.  A Fairy Tale.  The trees grow because of fucking magic.  He always wins because of fucking magic.  He can recreated universes because of fucking magic and things always work out right on time because of fucking magic.

I'm not interested in that type of Dr Who and won't ever be interested in that type of Dr Who.

It makes it so hard to critique when the guy writing utter shite can say 'A Wizard Did It' with no irony whatsoever.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tmon on December 30, 2013, 01:19:02 PM
I've said it before but the root of the problem for me is that instead of the Dr. having adventures they decided that he should have a story.  When an arc lasted for 2-4 episodes there wasn't as much chance of getting painted into a corner since you didn't have to keep things as tightly organized.  Also the way they resolved the max number of regens was complete bullshit.  Having him discover that it was possible to regen again might have made a good mystery for him to explore.  In fact he could have found out that the number of regens was somehow tied to the existence of Galllifrey in this universe and that as long as it was elsewhere he was able to break the limit.  It would also give him a nice little moral dilemma to whine about, now that the time war has been completely neutered.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on December 30, 2013, 03:51:00 PM
No, this one was just bad.

Even judged as a fairy tale and even allowing for how making everything about the doctor shrinks the universe and makes it less interesting... It was still really bad television.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Setanta on December 30, 2013, 03:51:26 PM
I have a feeling that's what made my childhood Dr Who so much fun (growing up in the 70s, special effects in the series were considered cool). They were adventures by the Doctor and his companions and his character developed from the adventures. I liked what was done with the Eccleston reboot and the Tennent continuation and liked Moffat writing one or two episodes (Dr dances etc). After that when he took the helm from Davies he just seems to have gone full retard - he should go work for Blizzard :D


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Pennilenko on December 30, 2013, 07:25:52 PM
I have a feeling that's what made my childhood Dr Who so much fun (growing up in the 70s, special effects in the series were considered cool). They were adventures by the Doctor and his companions and his character developed from the adventures. I liked what was done with the Eccleston reboot and the Tennent continuation and liked Moffat writing one or two episodes (Dr dances etc). After that when he took the helm from Davies he just seems to have gone full retard - he should go work for Blizzard :D

Sadly enough Moffat is ten times the writter that Metzen is.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Hayduke on December 30, 2013, 07:32:33 PM
I don't mind the arcs.  I just hate the live action Studio Ghibli feel they're going for.  Where there's no rules so anything's possible.  Imo if there's no rules, there's no struggle.  At least present a pretense that your show has consequences.

But even in that context this episode was really lazy.  Seeing him on the top of that tower waving his arms about reminded me of Mickey Mouse in Fantasia.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Threash on December 30, 2013, 08:11:22 PM
I've said it before but the root of the problem for me is that instead of the Dr. having adventures they decided that he should have a story.  When an arc lasted for 2-4 episodes there wasn't as much chance of getting painted into a corner since you didn't have to keep things as tightly organized.  Also the way they resolved the max number of regens was complete bullshit.  Having him discover that it was possible to regen again might have made a good mystery for him to explore.  In fact he could have found out that the number of regens was somehow tied to the existence of Galllifrey in this universe and that as long as it was elsewhere he was able to break the limit.  It would also give him a nice little moral dilemma to whine about, now that the time war has been completely neutered.

Why would he need to discover something he already knew? The whole running out of regens thing was never actually a "thing", a time lord getting a new set of regenerations has already happened with the Master.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: sickrubik on December 31, 2013, 12:47:10 PM
We have people from all over. Is the second half of Season 7 available for streaming ANYWHERE in the world? It's apparently not even on the BBC's iplayer even. This is starting to get a little silly, given how much we pay for satellite/hulu/amazon/etc.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on December 31, 2013, 12:53:01 PM
We have people from all over. Is the second half of Season 7 available for streaming ANYWHERE in the world? It's apparently not even on the BBC's iplayer even. This is starting to get a little silly, given how much we pay for satellite/hulu/amazon/etc.

It appears to be on Amazon Prime.

1. The Bells of Saint John [HD]        March 30, 2013    
2. The Rings of Akhaten [HD]        April 6, 2013    
3. Cold War [HD]        April 13, 2013
4. Hide [HD]        April 20, 2013
5. Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS [HD]        April 27, 2013
6. The Crimson Horror [HD]        May 4, 2013
7. Nightmare in Silver [HD]        May 11, 2013
8. The Name of The Doctor [HD]        May 18, 2013


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Threash on December 31, 2013, 01:18:15 PM
We have people from all over. Is the second half of Season 7 available for streaming ANYWHERE in the world? It's apparently not even on the BBC's iplayer even. This is starting to get a little silly, given how much we pay for satellite/hulu/amazon/etc.

I've never seen anything but NuWho, but anyone should know better than to complain about something in a show with 50 years of history without at least looking it up first.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on December 31, 2013, 01:37:36 PM
Whut ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: sickrubik on December 31, 2013, 01:44:06 PM
We have people from all over. Is the second half of Season 7 available for streaming ANYWHERE in the world? It's apparently not even on the BBC's iplayer even. This is starting to get a little silly, given how much we pay for satellite/hulu/amazon/etc.

It appears to be on Amazon Prime.

1. The Bells of Saint John [HD]        March 30, 2013    
2. The Rings of Akhaten [HD]        April 6, 2013    
3. Cold War [HD]        April 13, 2013
4. Hide [HD]        April 20, 2013
5. Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS [HD]        April 27, 2013
6. The Crimson Horror [HD]        May 4, 2013
7. Nightmare in Silver [HD]        May 11, 2013
8. The Name of The Doctor [HD]        May 18, 2013

For purchase.

We have people from all over. Is the second half of Season 7 available for streaming ANYWHERE in the world? It's apparently not even on the BBC's iplayer even. This is starting to get a little silly, given how much we pay for satellite/hulu/amazon/etc.

I've never seen anything but NuWho, but anyone should know better than to complain about something in a show with 50 years of history without at least looking it up first.

What.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on December 31, 2013, 02:36:52 PM
For purchase.

Ah, I see.  No, don't expect to see that for another 6-9 months at least.  The first half isn't even on Netflix yet.  The new thing is to pay to be sure that it doesn't get free streams on your competitors.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: sickrubik on December 31, 2013, 02:42:32 PM
For purchase.

The first half isn't even on Netflix yet.

It's on Hulu and Amazon Prime. But, the last episode of Season 7 was in May. It's now almost 2014. If it's 6-9 months away that puts it a year away form being streamed anywhere? That's a flawed model. Most of the delay in streaming (movies, etc) is 30 days. 7 part 2 was released in September.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on January 01, 2014, 12:36:19 PM
I must admit, I got a little sentimental when Matt Smith did his farewell speech. It was horribly meta in that it really was Matt Smith giving a farewell speech instead of the Doctor, but still. There were parts of it I liked - mostly the character interactions, which is the only thing Moffat ever gets right.

But yes, as soon as we saw old doddering Doctor, I shouted at the TV. We've seen him age 200 years in one episode and not look one jot different. But if the voiceover is to be believed, it was 300 years and suddenly he's about to turn into dust? Why? The Doctor has never ever in the fucking history of the show AGED naturally. Is that something Time Lords do on their 12th regen? Were they trying to tie it back? And the whole "lend a brother a regen" thing - REALLY LAZY. Why not actually bring back Gallifrey (as a writer)? Make things complicated. Give us some Time Lord stories. Instead, we will continue to have stories where the Doctor is essentially the Cat in the Goddamn Hat. Pop in, fuck shit up, fix it, move on.

Actors and acting as good as has been accomplished in Moffat's reign really fucking deserve writing that is complete and utter shit. I can't even keep the fucking mythology in head straight. The Silence is part of the Church? Did I miss that? Probably because the Silence was FUCKSTUPID. The absolute refusal to bother with coherent continuity is worse than Marvel and DC Comics put together.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 01, 2014, 02:00:45 PM
A Wizard Did It.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on January 01, 2014, 02:16:18 PM
 They prefer the term "Chronomancer," thank you.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: MahrinSkel on January 01, 2014, 06:04:21 PM
I must admit, I got a little sentimental when Matt Smith did his farewell speech. It was horribly meta in that it really was Matt Smith giving a farewell speech instead of the Doctor, but still. There were parts of it I liked - mostly the character interactions, which is the only thing Moffat ever gets right.

But yes, as soon as we saw old doddering Doctor, I shouted at the TV. We've seen him age 200 years in one episode and not look one jot different. But if the voiceover is to be believed, it was 300 years and suddenly he's about to turn into dust? Why? The Doctor has never ever in the fucking history of the show AGED naturally. Is that something Time Lords do on their 12th regen? Were they trying to tie it back? And the whole "lend a brother a regen" thing - REALLY LAZY. Why not actually bring back Gallifrey (as a writer)? Make things complicated. Give us some Time Lord stories. Instead, we will continue to have stories where the Doctor is essentially the Cat in the Goddamn Hat. Pop in, fuck shit up, fix it, move on.

Actors and acting as good as has been accomplished in Moffat's reign really fucking deserve writing that is complete and utter shit. I can't even keep the fucking mythology in head straight. The Silence is part of the Church? Did I miss that? Probably because the Silence was FUCKSTUPID. The absolute refusal to bother with coherent continuity is worse than Marvel and DC Comics put together.
It felt like it was a season's worth of loose-end tying compressed into a single episode.  Admittedly, the 10th Doctor did the same, but those were personal loose ends, not major causality knots blithely handwaved.

I didn't notice the meta on the farewell speech the first time, but when I re-watched it was obvious (he even addresses the fourth wall, looks directly into the camera but with his eyes at enough of an angle to his face I didn't see it the first time).  That part was well done.

I think Moffat just didn't like spending so much of the 11th Doctor's run tying up loose ends and didn't want to leave any new ones.  But it felt sloppy, they would have been better off just left dangling.

--Dave


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on January 01, 2014, 06:43:08 PM
I still think Moffat is going to do one series with Capaldi then quit. He's tying up loose ends because he wants to make sure all his Chekov's Guns are fired by the time he's done.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Velorath on January 02, 2014, 01:08:25 AM
You know, if you'd just listen to Moffat you'd at least be able to make your minds up properly.

He's said it again and again :  Dr Who is a Fairy Tale to him.  A Fairy Tale.  The trees grow because of fucking magic.  He always wins because of fucking magic.  He can recreated universes because of fucking magic and things always work out right on time because of fucking magic.

I'm not interested in that type of Dr Who and won't ever be interested in that type of Dr Who.

It makes it so hard to critique when the guy writing utter shite can say 'A Wizard Did It' with no irony whatsoever.


Yeah it's shocking to see a show that early on used "oh, he can regenerate into new bodies" as a way to justify changing the actor playing the main character just handwave things away.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on January 02, 2014, 12:28:23 PM
That's an extremely reductionist way to look at it. That was a character with only a few seasons worth of established continuity. This is a character with DECADES worth of established "rules." Almost all of which Moffat either ignores or handwaves away with an almost palpable disdain.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 02, 2014, 12:42:35 PM
Yeah, but Velorath knows that and is just being an utter dickmunch for the fun of it.  Which is fine.

You wanna tell me that an alien that can regenerate is the exact same as someone who rebuilt themselves and the entire universe due to 'THE POWER OF WISHES', you just go right ahead with the delusion.  That's fine too.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on January 02, 2014, 12:48:48 PM
The problem isn't handwaving regeneration limits away, the problem is making it a central point of an episode while also making it completely uninteresting and not making any sense.

A Wizard Did It is fine for the regen limit (though unnecessary), it is not fine as the resolution of the episode I've just wasted an hour watching.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on January 02, 2014, 01:33:17 PM
I think Moffat will pull a JNT and stay on, running the series completely into the ground. Then in 20 years, we can have Doctor Who 3.0.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on January 02, 2014, 06:22:27 PM
Well, bearing in mind that he said about a year ago that he was closer to the end of his turn as show-runner than to the beginning, I'd say you're talking bollocks.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on January 02, 2014, 08:47:42 PM
I don't think running into cancellation will take much more effort from him. I suspect he's closer to the end of his tenure than than the beginning as well.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on January 02, 2014, 08:59:17 PM
I hope he will step off soon too but come on. The show is not close to cancellation.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on January 03, 2014, 02:38:09 AM
While I agree - I remain nervous that the shitty writing will be even more a problem now that the doctor is older than Doogie Howser.

While cancellation is very unlikely, I could imagine TV people somehow concluding that the problem is Capaldi instead of Moffat, and casting a 12 year old to replace him.

Pessimism is my natural state you see.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Malakili on January 03, 2014, 03:58:33 AM
To be fair, Neil Patrick Harris could probably pull off being the Doctor.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on January 03, 2014, 05:20:45 AM
Reminds me of one of the great Matt Smith lines. To "Fear me, I have killed hundreds of Time lords"

"Fear me, I've killed all of them"

Well, knowing he actually hadn't. You see.

Yep, fuck stupid on every level, really.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on January 04, 2014, 05:30:27 AM
How did he know it?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Sir T on January 06, 2014, 03:43:02 AM
I thought it was retroactively handwaved that he always knew that the time-lords were not killed off. But I admit I wasn't paying too much attention. Sorry.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on January 06, 2014, 04:46:55 AM
Afaik in any multiple doctor situation, the earlier versions of the doctor forget what happened immeadiately after the event because <technobabble>, and otherwise the latest incarnation would know the storyline before they start.

It's narrative causality at its finest, but I'm moderately sure it is a pre Moffat rule.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on January 06, 2014, 09:02:41 AM
My sense from "Day of the Doctor" is that he didn't know that he'd saved rather than destroyed Gallifrey up until "Day of the Doctor" actually happened--up to that point he still thinks he used the Moment and killed them all. There's a bit where Tennant's Doctor says, "And now I'll forget". And yeah, they've said as much in the other multiple Doctor adventures, and it's not a stretch, really--I'm hard-pressed to think of any time-travel story outside the ones that take paradox really seriously that doesn't have that kind of escape clause about past selves not remembering what a future self does or did during a meeting. (Most of course get around this via something like 'If two versions of the same person meet, the entire space-time continuum will blow up!!!!!')

On the other hand, that line from "The Doctor's Wife" makes the idea that he's so very very ashamed of the War Doctor that he doesn't even acknowledge his existence rather odd, since he's been quite open in all of his nuWho regenerations that he is responsible for killing his own people, and by the time we get to Smith's Doctor, he's almost back to swaggering about it on occasion.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on January 06, 2014, 09:56:27 AM
I watched the xmas one last night.  I didn't understand a bit of it.  Not even a smidgeon.  I did, however, smile when Peter Capaldi appeared with that awesome Peter Capaldi face of his!  If anyone here hasn't seen "The Thick of It" series with Peter Capaldi, I totally, completely and utterly recommend it.  Totally.  His face is all over it.

I can't stop saying Peter Capaldi.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 06, 2014, 10:04:13 AM
He's been frequenting our local coffee place where my good friend works.  She's been star struck every time he's latte'd.  I'm told that's NOT a euphemism.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Threash on January 06, 2014, 10:40:52 AM

On the other hand, that line from "The Doctor's Wife" makes the idea that he's so very very ashamed of the War Doctor that he doesn't even acknowledge his existence rather odd, since he's been quite open in all of his nuWho regenerations that he is responsible for killing his own people, and by the time we get to Smith's Doctor, he's almost back to swaggering about it on occasion.

Killing his own people is not the entirety of what the war doctor did, he was young when he went to war and very old by the time he thought he destroyed Gallifrey. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on January 06, 2014, 10:43:45 AM
He's been frequenting our local coffee place where my good friend works.  She's been star struck every time he's latte'd.  I'm told that's NOT a euphemism.


It would only be a euphemism if his lattes end with him espressoing on her.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on January 06, 2014, 10:52:10 AM
I did, however, smile when Peter Capaldi appeared with that awesome Peter Capaldi face of his! 

When he looked at Clara with that face I so, SO wanted him to shout "And who the fuck are you?!".

But he didn't, which like the entire rest of the episode, was a complete disappointment.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on January 07, 2014, 06:05:45 AM

On the other hand, that line from "The Doctor's Wife" makes the idea that he's so very very ashamed of the War Doctor that he doesn't even acknowledge his existence rather odd, since he's been quite open in all of his nuWho regenerations that he is responsible for killing his own people, and by the time we get to Smith's Doctor, he's almost back to swaggering about it on occasion.

Killing his own people is not the entirety of what the war doctor did, he was young when he went to war and very old by the time he thought he destroyed Gallifrey. 

Yeah. Though again, I really cannot get behind the idea that killing a Dalek in order to stop it from killing everybody is a horrible, terrible thing that the Doctor should feel ashamed of. I guess we have to assume that he'd already done some other stuff in the war that was more morally compromised than driving the Tardis into Daleks. Or using ray guns to make messages on walls.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 07, 2014, 07:02:01 AM
I don't think anyone was saying that really.  The trouble is, as we've seen from various places and made manifest in the episode 'Dalek', you can't really beat them any other way.  The Daleks are a xenocide or nothing because they're utterly, utterly fucking crazy and even one is a nutjob of apocalyptic proportions.

This, however, has been a theme through many of the Dalek episodes, so is kinda humdrum by this stage.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Threash on January 07, 2014, 08:58:19 PM
And it wasn't just Daleks, the war was causing destruction in a mayor scale.  There was a reason that lady from night of the doctor hated the time lords as much as the Daleks.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on January 08, 2014, 12:47:20 AM
Yeah, I think you need to assume that the War Doctor had a whole lot of collateral damage stuff going on beyond just, 'Oh no I ended a universe threatening war by destroying the two genocidal protagonists'. The Time War generally clearly hit a lot of people and the Time Lords were never overly shy about sacrificing others to save themselves when the need arose so I always took the guilt to be indicative of the Doctor having played his part in sacrificing planets to lure Dalek fleets into traps or sending people to their deaths to help win. I think it's really more that that incarnation accepted that people die and stopped trying to save everyone, instead started doing what was necessary to win. Hence the whole 'make a warrior' moment.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 08, 2014, 03:35:00 AM
Yes, one gets the impression, putting everything together, that both The Doctor and the Timelords were forced into being very, very, very bad bastards.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on January 08, 2014, 10:14:29 AM
Yes. Which by the way leaves some room for the Doctor to still be haunted by his own capacity for destruction, which is one of the best elements of nuWho, that the character's "dark side" is much more dynamically present as a source of dramatic tension.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on January 08, 2014, 12:13:39 PM
Even now I guess he knows that he was ready and willing to press that button, and would have done it if another option hadn't unexpectedly come along at the last moment.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 08, 2014, 12:48:49 PM
I don't think he was ever under any illusions about what a bad bastard he could be.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on January 08, 2014, 12:58:27 PM
He knew it at least since the Valeyard, although who knows if that is still canon or if Moffat threw that out as not Fairy Tale enough.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on January 09, 2014, 11:55:38 AM
Yes, one gets the impression, putting everything together, that both The Doctor and the Timelords were forced into being very, very, very bad bastards.


I always got the impression that the Timelords themselves kind of lost the plot and started sacrificing people out of expediency rather than necessity. As such, the Doctor took them out with the Daleks to save more people - i.e. what he always does, just harder, more brutally and to his own people. That's one of the reasons I hated them giving him that out in Day of the Doctor. Nothing he did in the Time War was out of character - just out of the normal scale of things he's used to. I think of things like what he did to the Family as an example.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 09, 2014, 01:08:02 PM
Yes.  One also got the impression that they were such bad bastards he used them and his home planet as bait in the trap.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: eldaec on January 09, 2014, 01:57:49 PM
I get the impression that no one currently involved feels bound by anything so prosaic as established continuity and so they just make it up as they go along.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 09, 2014, 02:11:31 PM
HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Soulflame on January 09, 2014, 03:16:02 PM
Yes, but he's a wizard with a magical blue box that can violate causality (except for when it can't.  Plus the times where it shouldn't be able to, but suddenly is, because reasons.  Also, SHUT UP.)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on January 09, 2014, 03:21:23 PM
Yes, but he's a wizard with a magical blue box that can violate causality (except for when it can't.  Plus the times where it shouldn't be able to, but suddenly is, because reasons.  Also, SHUT UP.)

You forgot about his magic, erm sonic, wand.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on January 09, 2014, 03:32:54 PM
Yes, but he's a wizard with a magical blue box that can violate causality (except for when it can't.  Plus the times where it shouldn't be able to, but suddenly is, because reasons.  Also, SHUT UP.)

None of which is a problem, except when it becomes the focus of the show:)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on January 09, 2014, 04:13:58 PM
I get the impression that no one currently involved feels bound by anything so prosaic as established continuity and so they just make it up as they go along.
I think Moffat should have stuck to this continuity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do-wDPoC6GM


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on January 09, 2014, 04:29:54 PM
Yes, one gets the impression, putting everything together, that both The Doctor and the Timelords were forced into being very, very, very bad bastards.


I always got the impression that the Timelords themselves kind of lost the plot and started sacrificing people out of expediency rather than necessity. As such, the Doctor took them out with the Daleks to save more people - i.e. what he always does, just harder, more brutally and to his own people. That's one of the reasons I hated them giving him that out in Day of the Doctor. Nothing he did in the Time War was out of character - just out of the normal scale of things he's used to. I think of things like what he did to the Family as an example.

Yes. I honestly preferred this sense, reinforced by some of the lines in The End of Time Part 2, that the Time Lords had completely lost any relative benevolence and had become as dangerous and morally vacant as the Daleks, so the Doctor did what he had to do in order to save everything.

It's not even inconsistent with being a Doctor, e.g., a healer. Healers sometimes amputate if it's the only way to save a patient's life.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on January 12, 2014, 06:06:35 AM
Rewatching Eccleston and it's just a polar opposite.  He was a bad bastard tho.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on January 12, 2014, 06:29:50 PM
Eccles is too busy starring in GI Joe films to come back to Doctor Who though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on January 12, 2014, 07:25:23 PM
Eccles is too busy starring in GI Joe films to come back to Doctor Who though.

I believe there was more to it than that...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Threash on January 12, 2014, 07:32:06 PM
He actually wanted to chose the director for the 50th anniversary special to be on it.  As much as i wanted to see him there that was simply an idiotic request.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on January 13, 2014, 10:34:42 AM
That meant he really didn't want to fucking do it, because he felt like he'd been fucked over by many of the other directors on the show in his time there and wasn't about to step back into the role unless the producers showed they wanted to be accommodating of his past issues. He's clearly stated in the past that the role wasn't the problem, the showrunners were.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on August 11, 2014, 06:39:39 PM
New series trailer. 30 seconds long, contains a few mild spoilers and you probably shouldn't watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Fhr-HapZE

The new series starts on August 23. I'm surprised Ironwood hasn't resurrected this thread yet. The BBC have been hyping it up by showing the first episode to selected journalists, and it's had very good reviews. The first episode is 80 minutes long (without adverts of course).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on August 11, 2014, 09:16:20 PM
Saw a report this weekend about Moffat wanting to muck around with a Who/ Sherlock cross-over.

So someone in the UK stop his reign of terror before it starts.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Soulflame on August 11, 2014, 10:09:21 PM
First off, we need a madman with a magic box...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 12, 2014, 03:35:10 AM

 I'm surprised Ironwood hasn't resurrected this thread yet.


I shall, of course, watch it in hope.  As far as I can tell, the look and feel of Capaldi is top notch, but what hope can I have if the scripts are just the same as the last couples of seasons ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on August 12, 2014, 10:29:05 AM
^ THIS. ^

I'm not exactly hate-watching it because let's face it, I'd watch it just for Hot Companion and Peter Capaldi. If the scripts don't improve, it'll be just like Smith's run - well-acted, well-shot trash that continually makes me go BWAWHU?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on August 12, 2014, 06:05:15 PM
Here's my take, Smith let the Moffatry happen because he was young and eager and, "Holy shit, I'm Doctor Who!"

Capaldi will have less of that because he's fucking Capaldi. At least, that's my hope.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on August 12, 2014, 07:38:52 PM
Here's my take, Smith let the Moffatry happen because he was young and eager and, "Holy shit, I'm Doctor Who!"

Capaldi will have less of that because he's fucking Capaldi. At least, that's my hope.

Well Capaldi should be familiar with the show enough to know when to raise the eyebrow.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 12, 2014, 08:04:45 PM
Capaldi eyebrows are already stuff of legend, add doctor gravitas to it and I am unsure if the earth can handle it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 13, 2014, 03:54:35 AM
I wish, I wish, I wish I had your hope.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 13, 2014, 07:28:45 AM
I still think you guys are overly hard on the show under Moffat, but I do hope he restrains some of his own wretched tendencies, and I do hope that he hands off the reins to someone else while Capaldi is still in the role.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on August 13, 2014, 10:11:52 PM
I'm seeing the season premiere tomorrow night with Capaldi and Coleman. If I get to actually talk to him, I'll tell him to kill Moffat in his sleep.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 14, 2014, 03:44:15 AM
You're what with the who now ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on August 14, 2014, 12:26:33 PM
He's namedropping again, just nod and move on.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on August 14, 2014, 12:35:34 PM
I am indeed namedropping. It's one of the perks of being me.  :awesome_for_real:

That said, it'll be a few hundred other people too, so I probably won't be able to get a question in.

edit: I gave my tickets to a couple of people that would've geeked out on the experience bigger than me. They instagrammed selfies with Capaldi and a cyberman.

And then there was the lone shot of Moffat. Damn me for being a good guy. I could've ended the Moffatry once and for all.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 14, 2014, 09:02:15 PM
Pics or it didn't happen.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on August 14, 2014, 09:28:34 PM
(http://photos-h.ak.instagram.com/hphotos-ak-xpa1/925604_733868840013639_1333862464_n.jpg)
(http://photos-h.ak.instagram.com/hphotos-ak-xpf1/10544267_673658996060503_1265809411_n.jpg)

Heh, Moffat's looking up Jenna's dress.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 14, 2014, 10:07:41 PM
Poor girl can't afford shoes that fit.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 15, 2014, 03:15:26 AM
Glad I'm not the only one that noticed that.

I just want the caption on that last picture to be 'Take The Shot !!!'


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Signe on August 15, 2014, 09:09:25 AM
You're not.  It's actually the first thing I noticed.  Geez, they look painful, too.

As much as I like Peter Capaldi (The Thick of It was one of my fav programs... except for the YEARS in between seasons), I'm not sure even he can convince me to watch Dr. Who.  He's in that new Musketeers series, too, which is on my list to watch. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on August 15, 2014, 09:40:05 AM
He's a bit of a bastard in that too.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on August 15, 2014, 02:05:57 PM
He's really good in the Musketeers series as Cardinal Richelieu. He has the perfect blend of dickishness and B-movie mustache twirling villainy.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 18, 2014, 09:39:13 AM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/tv-radio/doctor-whos-jenna-louise-coleman-quits-4063626

Clara out, thank christ.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: tazelbain on August 18, 2014, 09:55:09 AM
Regardless of the actress, once she ascended to be his guardian angel she should have been done. I'd like him to take on an apprentice or android. I am so done with pseudo-love interests.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on August 18, 2014, 10:32:12 AM
Regardless of the actress, once she ascended to be his guardian angel she should have been done. I'd like him to take on an apprentice or android. I am so done with pseudo-love interests.

In terms of the show, I fully agree. But I will miss the eye candy...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 18, 2014, 10:36:54 AM
Donna was the best for reasons that ought to be obvious to everyone.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 18, 2014, 10:42:09 AM
Donna was the best for reasons that ought to be obvious to everyone.


She was.  Does anyone know why she left the show? I imagine it's cause moffat thought fans only want super hot companions.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 18, 2014, 10:54:37 AM
It's because she turned into The Doctor.

Oh, you mean the real life reason, not the fucking retarded 'I can't write for fucking shit' reason.

Um.  Dunno really.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 18, 2014, 11:09:35 AM
Yeah, I never heard that she was unhappy or anything.

Clara has never had any personality at all anyway--she was a just a plot device and eye candy.

She absolutely should have disappeared for good once she went into his timeline. That would have been modestly interesting and would have on occasion given them the chance to put her in an episode or two, though the way they staged that, the point I thought was not that she saves him from everything but that specifically she blocks everything that the Great Intelligence tries to do to him. It would have had a nice tragic edge to it if she was condemned to that and the Doctor couldn't do anything about it.

Please, please, please, it's time for the Doctor to once again have a companion whose story is not rooted in early 21st Century Great Britain and who isn't anything magical timey-wimey in any way. Sure, give the companion their own story, their own development as a character--that was a very desirable addition to the series from Ace onward. But please--have the Doctor pick up someone from Earth's past or future. Or an alien. Or a machine. Something.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on August 18, 2014, 11:41:33 AM
...but then where do we put the Moffatdated hot chick?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Johny Cee on August 18, 2014, 11:58:47 AM
Donna was the best for reasons that ought to be obvious to everyone.
She was.  Does anyone know why she left the show? I imagine it's cause moffat thought fans only want super hot companions.

I know the Moffat hate is pretty ingrained, but Donna was in Davies term as showrunner back when the Davies hate was pretty ingrained.  The actress had other things going on (she had her own comedy series going on at the time) and was probably only signed to one season.  I mean, generally I find Moffat fine but some of his tics have started to get annoying...  the sheer level of HATE is kind of  :uhrr:

Moffat did clear out the slate of supporting characters (Captain Jack, Rose, Mickey, etc.) to incorporate his own supporting characters and mythology.  


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on August 18, 2014, 02:09:48 PM

I know the Moffat hate is pretty ingrained, but Donna was in Davies term as showrunner back when the Davies hate was pretty ingrained.  The actress had other things going on (she had her own comedy series going on at the time) and was probably only signed to one season.  I mean, generally I find Moffat fine but some of his tics have started to get annoying...  the sheer level of HATE is kind of  :uhrr:

Moffat did clear out the slate of supporting characters (Captain Jack, Rose, Mickey, etc.) to incorporate his own supporting characters and mythology.  

Yeah, I imagine Donna had to go because the new showrunner wanted to do his own thing, which is fair enough and probably a good idea (in theory but grr Moffat grrr  :mob: )

Not sure why she couldn't have been in more of the specials though, although the way they ended her story in the Stolen Earth/Journey's End was nice and seemed like a natural way for her to bow out.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on August 18, 2014, 04:08:02 PM
Fuck you all, i like Clara. Mostly for the eye candy, but I like her anyway.

I do agree that we need a companion from the past or future. Bring back Captain Jack. Now that Torchwood's a shambles and all his other American projects are meh, he's good to go.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on August 18, 2014, 04:55:40 PM
Fuck you all, i like Clara. Mostly for the eye candy, but I like her anyway.

I do agree that we need a companion from the past or future. Bring back Captain Jack. Now that Torchwood's a shambles and all his other American projects are meh, he's good to go.

But only for a few episodes. I really like Capt Jack and his whoring ways... but after Torchwood, it wouldn't seem right bringing him back every episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on August 18, 2014, 05:18:26 PM
What happened to Torchwood? I thought Miracle Day was meant to be the start of a new US-based show, not the end of it all.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on August 18, 2014, 05:35:48 PM
Miracle Day sucked so much, they killed it.

Great in theory, shit in execution. Had it been five eps like Children of Earth, it probably would've worked.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: 01101010 on August 18, 2014, 05:47:42 PM
Miracle Day sucked so much, they killed it.

Great in theory, shit in execution. Had it been five eps like Children of Earth, it probably would've worked.

Yeah, that season just about killed the whole thing for me and even made me dislike Harkness a bit. Children was pretty damn good though.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 18, 2014, 07:55:05 PM
Children was good except that it really depended on significant numbers of the characters being stupid. I could see the whole "let's make a deal" thing going off, but why all the folderol about taking Torchwood out etc.? Why *not* play it rough and smooth, keep some black ops working while you cover your ass and make the deal? Plus this was one big case where "this is a universe with the Doctor in it" just did not come off. Not because the Doctor didn't come in to save the day but because Earth (once again!) seems to have forgotten literally everything it allegedly already knows about dealing with aliens.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 23, 2014, 04:09:13 PM
Don't know.

Really don't know.

Um.


EDIT :  Tho, it was an entirely Moffat written episode and I'm ambivalent.  That ought to tell you something, I guess.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on August 23, 2014, 04:25:27 PM
I heard the first episode is bad, the second a bit better, and the third is really good.  So I'm willing to give it a few episodes before I decide to hate it or not.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 23, 2014, 04:26:54 PM
It was a two parter really, with the first part being ok and hitting some nice notes and then some farty Moffat at the end.

Hey ho.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 23, 2014, 06:11:40 PM
The family is watching the final Matt Smith episode while waiting and I wandered in. I'd forgotten just how really bad it was, and so disappointing, after a really pretty damn good 50th special.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 23, 2014, 06:17:38 PM
The family is watching the final Matt Smith episode while waiting and I wandered in. I'd forgotten just how really bad it was, and so disappointing, after a really pretty damn good 50th special.


I didn't hate the concept of it but it was just really rushed and shouldn't have been crammed into one episode like that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on August 23, 2014, 06:23:22 PM
If they'd cut everything before the restaurant scene it would have been a really good episode.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 23, 2014, 06:33:16 PM
If they'd cut everything before the restaurant scene it would have been a really good episode.

Are you thinking of Tennant?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on August 23, 2014, 07:08:32 PM
So there's 10 mins of Will Wheaton and douchy American BBC guy before the episode. Get on with it.

Ed: Surli, you're fired for not getting on tv despite going to that event.   :drill:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on August 23, 2014, 08:37:34 PM
I didn't go. Sent my monkeys. They were in for a second. Sadly, the hotter of the two of them was obscured by the dorkier.

Also, "Five foot one and crying, you never had a chance."


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 23, 2014, 09:08:23 PM
Does "restaurant scene" mean the scene with the Doctor and the clockwork cyborg alone in the escape pod, that has an ambiguous ending? Because I thought that was the best thing in the whole episode.

The phone thing at the almost-end was absolutely wretched.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on August 23, 2014, 10:15:42 PM
Yes, but "These are attack eyebrows" makes up for it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on August 24, 2014, 12:20:33 AM
If they'd cut everything before the restaurant scene it would have been a really good episode.

Heh, I felt exactly the opposite. I thought everything from the restaurant on went off the rails.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on August 24, 2014, 12:21:47 AM
Yes, highlight of the episode was the entire alley scene. That part of Moffat's writing I enjoy.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 24, 2014, 03:23:09 AM
If they'd cut everything before the restaurant scene it would have been a really good episode.

I too hope you mean 'and keep the stuff before', because otherwise, I'm not sure what to do with you.

The minute you realised it was Moffat rehashing one of his old episodes, it got clusterfucked.  Matt Phone Call was Clusterfucked.  Fake 'omg what actually happened' was clusterfucked.  Dream Garden Arc Woooooowoooo was Clusterfucked.

I did love Capaldi though.  Also, Strax.  Why isn't there just a Strax show ?  Him boiling people in acid ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on August 24, 2014, 05:28:26 AM
If they'd cut everything before the restaurant scene it would have been a really good episode.

I too hope you mean 'and keep the stuff before', because otherwise, I'm not sure what to do with you.
So you thought T-Rex puking up the Tardis like a cat with a hairball was good?  :uhrr:

On review it's not the restaurant it should be skipped to, but the t-rex getting torched. Start there, skip 90% of lesbian lizard Sherlock, cut to tramp in alley and go from there. Phone call was clearly because Moffat doesn't trust the gigglesquee tweenies to keep watching now that the Doctor isn't young. Heavy-handed as fuck and my personal opinion is "Fuck 'em if they can't handle it" but then again I don't have to worry about ratings.

E: Just had a thought. You know what would have made better villains than the clockworks? Cybermen. Same set up, but they're performing reverse cyber-conversions on themselves in desperation as part of the whole "We MUZZZT survive!" thing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 24, 2014, 08:02:00 AM
I think you may have just guessed at the season ender, actually--that woman is in it and she seems from the set pictures to be directing or working with Cybermen.

I actually liked the ambiguity around whether the Doctor pushed the robot out. And I liked some of the dialogue in that scene.

I liked the stuff in the alley. Liked a lot of Capaldi.

I really disliked Clara's general reaction to his regeneration. If there is a single companion in the entire history of the series who should be nonplussed by his regeneration, it's her. She's supposedly spent time saving all of his incarnations from the Great Intelligence, so she's very familiar with the variety of faces he can have. I'm ok with her saying, "But I liked the last one so much, and I don't like this one very much"--that's fine. But the "he got old! why? what's that?" is dumb. And it was a foretaste of the absolutely shit phone call thing, which just so argh argh argh. It makes the crap Amy Pond narration that BBC America used for a season look a subtle bit of pandering instead.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 24, 2014, 08:10:16 AM
There as no ambiguity.  Surely.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 24, 2014, 08:51:38 AM
There at least an attempt to create a sense of "did he?" around it, but yeah, I took it to be pretty clear. And I'm quite happy if that means Twelve will in general be less prancy and cutesy etc. about doing what he must do at times. And hopefully this will also mean less of the almost-endorsement of the idea that the Doctor is just the same as his enemies or whatever. Perhaps the Doctor discovering that his "War Doctor" self was not such a bad fellow after all will have a good effect on him overall.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 24, 2014, 09:46:23 AM
All the reviews in the US mentioned Strax's vlog on the Doctors, by the way, but that didn't actually show on BBC America, I guess so we could see Chris Hardwick and Wil Wheaton. Would rather have seen Strax.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 24, 2014, 10:02:50 AM
The woman at the end is without a doubt the master,  if you replaced it with the old actor who played him you'd see the same manic behavior and obession with the doctor.

Overall I thought the episode was fine.  If the sappy bit with 11 is what is considered "moffatry crap" then I don't know what to say because that sentimentality is what has grown the fanbase by leaps and bounds this last decade.  You may not like it but I'm pretty sure that sort of thing is here to stay. 

For me the only stupid part was "quick everyone stop breathing and they will forget they were trying to kill us"  that whole scene could have just been cut because 1min later they were back in the same situation.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: MahrinSkel on August 24, 2014, 10:37:22 AM
I'm assuming the "hold your breath" is a setup for something in a later episode, because otherwise it was completely useless.  The phone call was probably some kind of attempt to get "regeneration" across to the newer fans who don't remember anyone but Matt Smith in the role.

--Dave


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on August 24, 2014, 11:11:54 AM
The phone call and the Clara, "But he's so old" bit was for the tweeny twilight types that have become the current fanbase.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 24, 2014, 11:13:32 AM
He pretty much addressed all the questions at the start, in a clever way I thought.  Which is why I preferred the start and then he just wanked for the rest of it.  Hey, remember that Pompadour episode I wrote ?  Do you remember ?  DO YOU REMEMBER ???  DO YOU SEE ??!


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on August 24, 2014, 12:43:22 PM
The woman at the end is without a doubt the master,  if you replaced it with the old actor who played him you'd see the same manic behavior and obession with the doctor.
That's interesting. She referred to the doctor as her boyfriend so I assumed she was some manifestation of the tardis.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 24, 2014, 12:49:47 PM
I thought Tardis too. 

But you know it'll end up being something utterly mentalcakes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 24, 2014, 01:18:50 PM
The woman at the end is without a doubt the master,  if you replaced it with the old actor who played him you'd see the same manic behavior and obession with the doctor.
That's interesting. She referred to the doctor as her boyfriend so I assumed she was some manifestation of the tardis.

They had a bit of a bromance thing going on in their last episode together.  "you are so beautiful, we could travel the universe together" or something something.  The master coming back as some sort of twisted love angle works for me, it's almost a trope of the villain falling in love with the hero in that bizarre batman/joker way.  They could fuck it up royally but it's got potential.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 24, 2014, 02:00:39 PM
I've been burned before when I thought they were setting up a call-back to older elements in the series, and Moffat in particular seems more fond just of references to his own work than to anything else. But he did bring back the Great Intelligence, so who knows.

Here you have a character who is specifically knowledgeable about the Doctor, so it almost can't be someone completely new.

Master = Mistress = Missy is something lots of folks have already noticed.

River Song (please god, no) w/the boyfriend thing.

Both are characters who have plausible mechanisms for altering their appearances.

Other Time Lords? The Rani is a stupid character, so let's hope not. Rassilon or Borusa or something like that? Doesn't seem like Moffat's kind of thing.

Romana? Sort of hope not, would be nasty to reintroduce her as a villain.

One of the Sisterhood of Karn? Well, Moffat's at least been willing to reintroduce them.

Any old villains who have a thing about capturing the dead? Or who operate out of another dimension? Maybe Omega has traded in the big voice and weird mask for a Victorian nanny's outfit.

Can't really think of anything else that's strictly nuWho that would make much sense.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on August 24, 2014, 02:17:08 PM
I'd quite like a big bad whose motivation has nothing to do with being The Doctor's former girlfriend/boyfriend/companion/TARDIS/arch-enemy or whatever and actually has some sort of life of their own beyond obsessing about him. A strong desire to rule and/or destroy the universe would do fine.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 24, 2014, 03:02:57 PM
Oh, and all joking aside, I really, really don't like the new TARDIS.

You can write little joke lines about the round things as much as you want, mate, but the TARDIS needs more round things.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on August 24, 2014, 07:10:26 PM
I'm assuming the "hold your breath" is a setup for something in a later episode, because otherwise it was completely useless.  The phone call was probably some kind of attempt to get "regeneration" across to the newer fans who don't remember anyone but Matt Smith in the role.

--Dave

My thought was that the entire convoluted hold your breath thing was there just so that Moffatt could insert that cliché Action Movie scene of "I'll breath for you!" between the two girls. There seemed to be an underlying theme in the episode of "look how awesome I can write lesbians as if they were straight! Rawr!".  I don't mind that idea at all, but how many times did she state they were married? Six? Moffatt will never learn the effectiveness of subtlety.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 24, 2014, 08:33:52 PM
Yes, it was very much "straight men love to write lesbians who talk about how they're lesbians a lot". Which is better than "no one is gay in this universe" but it isn't exactly "ok, everything's just fine here now, thank you."

I would love a villain whose motivation is:

a) serious
b) interesting
c) doesn't involve destroying or ruling over all Creation
d) isn't so petty that it makes no sense for the Doctor to be matched up against him/her
e) is a match for the Doctor in some important respect: personal power, smarts, control over resources, self-awareness


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on August 25, 2014, 12:38:26 AM
Strax is, I think, an unconscious representation of Moffat himself. He's an incompetent idiot who thinks he's actually superior to everyone around him. And he doesn't understand what women are at all.

Capaldi was pretty good and yeah, the alley scene was the best bit. A lot of the rest of it, particularly the opening stuff with the dinosaur, looked really low budget.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raph on August 25, 2014, 01:02:06 AM
Quote
Moffat doesn't trust the gigglesquee tweenies to keep watching now that the Doctor isn't young.

He's not wrong. He lost both my daughter and my wife in the first five minutes. Smith was their first doctor. A bunch of the one-liners later caught their attention, but they definitely were not as into it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on August 25, 2014, 07:41:24 AM
Quote
Moffat doesn't trust the gigglesquee tweenies to keep watching now that the Doctor isn't young.

He's not wrong. He lost both my daughter and my wife in the first five minutes. Smith was their first doctor. A bunch of the one-liners later caught their attention, but they definitely were not as into it.

Pretty much. I wrote a really long screed on the bookface to all the bandwagon Who fans that have been shitting up my timeline about Clara and that phone call at the end and "why'd they have to bring Matt back only to take him away again!" Clara is you, you whiny bitches.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 25, 2014, 08:01:49 AM
lol.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 25, 2014, 08:48:27 AM
lol.

Now watch ratings tank
Capaldi get the axe
Thousands of twilight who fans say "well 'I' thought he was ok"
New hunk gets lead


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: satael on August 25, 2014, 10:04:07 AM
I enjoyed the episode up until Matt Smith showed up which kind of marked the point where it fell flat down for me (but luckily that was at the end of the episode so it didn't ruin it for me). The best I could describe it until that point was it felt fun which might be due to me lately watching too many series that took themselves too seriously.  :grin:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 25, 2014, 10:14:12 AM
I enjoyed the episode up until Matt Smith showed up which kind of marked the point where it fell flat down for me (but luckily that was at the end of the episode so it didn't ruin it for me). The best I could describe it until that point was it felt fun which might be due to me lately watching too many series that took themselves too seriously.  :grin:

I didn't like the call specifically but I thought the last bit at the end was fine and light enough.  The hug made me laugh.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: tazelbain on August 25, 2014, 10:35:05 AM
I would set up the Clone-daughter as opposition who thinks her Dad is too soft-hearted so she is going to set universe right with indirect harsh tactics.  I feel most of his opposition contrasts too much with him. He needs a opponent that is intellectually and morally challenging. Its just too easy to beat up on space nazis.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raph on August 25, 2014, 03:39:05 PM
Clara is you, you whiny bitches.

I actually said that, in a gentler manner, to my family while we watched. :)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on August 25, 2014, 06:00:57 PM
lol.
Now do you get it?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 26, 2014, 03:44:35 AM
?

Some context as to what you're on about ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Setanta on August 27, 2014, 06:00:14 AM
As someone who has watched Dr Who from Jon Pertwee onwards... "god damn that was boring as all hell".

Actually, I lie - I lasted 2 episodes of Matt Smith and gave up on it all.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 27, 2014, 06:05:10 AM
Kindly put your dick back in your pants, there are ladies present.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on August 27, 2014, 02:58:12 PM
I liked it well enough. Best parts were Capaldi being allowed to Capaldi it up. Worst parts were the phone call and Clara's reaction to him being old. I too thought that of anyone, she should understand the regeneration part the most, what with having seen ALL THE FUCKING DOCTORS IN EVER.

Somebody just needs to write a plot and make Moffat write the dialogue. He's good at that. Plots? Not so fucking much.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on August 29, 2014, 09:25:37 PM
Very relevant.
http://www.cracked.com/video_19026_its-time-to-retire-doctor-who.html

Best line, "You're a conspicuous and desperate bid for fandom. You assume having all the right ingredients is the same as making something from them." 

He's speaking to the show as a whole, but that points right at the main guy who doesn't fucking get it; Moffatt.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 30, 2014, 01:47:41 AM
"You don't just have plotholes, you live in those holes."

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on August 30, 2014, 02:34:54 PM
The first half or so of the latest one (Into the Dalek) was brilliant. Great dialogue, they introduced Clara's new friend well and I'm enjoying Capaldi's performance even more than I thought I would.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 30, 2014, 07:15:41 PM
Very relevant.
http://www.cracked.com/video_19026_its-time-to-retire-doctor-who.html

Best line, "You're a conspicuous and desperate bid for fandom. You assume having all the right ingredients is the same as making something from them." 

He's speaking to the show as a whole, but that points right at the main guy who doesn't fucking get it; Moffatt.

So basically "show that is more popular now than it's ever been" should pack it in because what...reasons? I can understand things go from cool into "cool to hate on" but really? Also craxked.com's entire philosophy is about making half-assed articles with sensational headlines to get click throughs.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on August 30, 2014, 08:44:38 PM
"She's my carer, she cares so I don't have to..."

As for the Cracked article, he's speaking to the Moffatry for the most part and while I don't agree with it all, I agree with some of it. Don't fucking revel in the "Wizard did it", rise the fuck above it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 30, 2014, 09:16:56 PM
I thought that was the best the show's been in a long time, actually. ("Into the Dalek").

Also, you know how people say, "Oh, Smith is a bit of Troughton and a bit of this and bit of that guy"?

Capaldi is Capaldi. He's recognizably the Doctor but he's not riffing off of or quoting or redoing anybody else. He's doing his own thing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 31, 2014, 02:47:34 AM
That was.... kinda a good episode.

It's still too Moffat for me to like, but the actual lines and delivery was very good.  Capaldi is, as expected, really hitting the role for me, though you should bear in mind that I didn't have a problem with Smith at all either.

However :

Once again, we've just stolen a movie and put it in an episode.
Once again, we have this Missy woman that's nonsense and doing the 'ARCY' thing.  Give it a fucking rest.  We also have OMG Coincidences that I Just Can't Ignore because I wonder if they'll be MOFFATTED.  "That's funny, I just met another soldier with a name that's a colour!"  FORESHADOWING OR JUST STUPID DIALOGUE ??
Once again, we're fucking about with known continuity, "Sorry, it's a shame you're a soldier because I don't take soldier companions, except, you know for the three or four that I did take that were soldiers"
Once again, you KNOW that Moffat has made one of his 'bunch' and that we WILL see Rusty the Dalek again.  Oh Gods. 

Anyway, good episode if you can ignore all that.

And I know that you guys can.  It's me that's insane.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Setanta on August 31, 2014, 03:07:40 AM
Capaldi is Capaldi. He's recognizably the Doctor but he's not riffing off of or quoting or redoing anybody else. He's doing his own thing.


Sad thing is, Capaldi reminds me of Peter Cushing playing the Doctor in the 2 films, with a bit of William Hartnell thrown in. :D


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 31, 2014, 03:22:17 AM
There's a lot of Tom in there too, when Tom was being arrogant bad Tom.  Same with Hartnell.

But you can see glimpses, but he's mostly his own chap.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 31, 2014, 06:05:38 AM
I sort of thought the "I don't do soldiers" was the Doctor still feeling bad (maybe bad all over again) for having been such an effective soldier himself in the Time War. So different than for Doctors #1-7. After all he had his nose rubbed in it when he tried to just think happy thoughts about how beautiful the universe is and he couldn't pull it off.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 31, 2014, 06:17:37 AM
It doesn't matter how you rationalise it, really, it's the Doc being prejudiced against soldiers and it doesn't wash.  He's always been prickly about them and guns, but he has enough experience to KNOW different.

It didn't stand up to me.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Velorath on August 31, 2014, 06:57:12 AM
I thought the episode was ok, but it retread a lot of the same well-worn ground as some previous Dalek episodes (that the Doctor hates Daleks so much that his desire to kill them all is almost Dalek-like).


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 31, 2014, 10:23:13 AM
The soldier thing was certainly Moffat working overtime to find something that the Doctor can experience character movement over during this season, sure.

I'd almost rather he decide that there's nothing particularly wrong with wanting to destroy evil creatures who've very nearly destroyed all of Creation on several occasions. Which might make a good segue to introducing some other kind of enemy for him. What if he came up against "enlightened conquerors", for example--fairly refined imperialists who don't want to kill or exterminate everything but who corrupt and insinuate and steal what's good and interesting in other cultures? Or something like the Doctor Who equivalent of the Dominion--a multispecies society held together through terror and intimidation.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 31, 2014, 11:08:21 AM
Regarding missy:  I think series long arcs are fine when they are remotely interesting. The whole cracks in time and trenzalor stuff was just boring and took all the threat away from each episode because the characters were always focused on the bigger picture. Here you have an obvious villain bring villainously polite but not only is it small but the doctor is not privy to it so the episodes still stand on their own merits while we wet our beaks on what could be an interesting future story.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 31, 2014, 11:38:56 AM
Except it's not going to be.  It's going to be dull and retarded.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on August 31, 2014, 02:24:33 PM
It will be if Moffat sticks to his wretched need to tie everything up in a big thematic knot and have all his half-assed side plots add up to something. The whole Silence-River Song-Church-Trenzalore things is almost as bad as Trial of a Time Lord in that sense.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on August 31, 2014, 03:14:00 PM
Yes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 01, 2014, 12:28:16 PM
I thought the episode was ok, but it retread a lot of the same well-worn ground as some previous Dalek episodes (that the Doctor hates Daleks so much that his desire to kill them all is almost Dalek-like).

I think it felt more like the writer/showrunner hates Daleks but is forced to make at least one Dalek episode per series so it got it over with in as small and quick a fashion as he could. The "no soldiers" was in direct contrast to many other instances of the Doctor actually having soldier companions (and don't even get me started on the Brigadier). I like Soldier Pink, the Teacher and hope he continues, maybe as the new Rory.  :why_so_serious: Capaldi is absolutely nailing the material he's given but anyone who didn't expect that hasn't watched the man act.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: DraconianOne on September 01, 2014, 12:44:47 PM
I think it felt more like the writer/showrunner hates Daleks but is forced to make at least one Dalek episode per series so it got it over with in as small and quick a fashion as he could.

On the plus side, the redesigned BMW Daleks didn't resurface...

EDIT: that redesign was 2010! WTF happened to the last 4 years? :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 01, 2014, 02:23:03 PM
Yeah, have you noticed those IPod Daleks ain't been seen much ? 

I wonder why...


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 01, 2014, 07:24:14 PM
Capaldi can and will, drag the show kicking and screaming into goodness whether the script likes it or not.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 02, 2014, 04:09:50 AM
He certainly makes it more watchable.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on September 02, 2014, 04:54:00 AM
I thought this was a bit better than the first episode, but I've dropped my expectations to the floor these days to avoid Moffatt-induced disappointment.

Clara did at least get to do "something clever" this episode, even if it was a bit deus ex machina.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 02, 2014, 07:54:39 AM
I really feel like this is an example of how a great actor elevates other actors--you can feel Jenna Coleman trying to catch up, to layer her character much more. I wouldn't be surprised if both she and Capaldi ended up saying fairly explicitly to Moffat, "Look, this character has really blown up to this point: try to write a personality and an actual human storyline for her this season, eh?"


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on September 02, 2014, 10:25:51 AM
She's gone after Christmas, so that's doubtful.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: DraconianOne on September 05, 2014, 10:35:33 AM
Complaints received by the BBC about the first episode this season

(http://i.imgur.com/4rjytw9.jpg)

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 05, 2014, 10:41:00 AM
Faith in humanity....yup, still gone.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on September 05, 2014, 02:11:15 PM
Heh. Am I so far gone that the only thing about that relationship that looks creepy is that the reptilia woman treats her spouse like a servant?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 05, 2014, 02:16:42 PM
 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 05, 2014, 02:23:55 PM
 :oh_i_see: :drillf:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 05, 2014, 03:04:01 PM
"This so called modern world mentality"


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on September 06, 2014, 10:42:06 AM
I think the sexism one tops them. "If the same comment were made about, say, black people" indeed.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 06, 2014, 02:38:23 PM
Yeah, not sure I liked that much.  Didn't really rack up against The Time Warrior.

However;

Jenna Coleman.  Jesus.  Yes, Please.

Ben Miller was born to play The Master.  Clearly.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 06, 2014, 09:56:21 PM
It was slight and weirdly paced but not terrible or unpleasant. Ok but forgettable I guess I would say. Pushing a bit hard as always to say something about "the nature of the Doctor", it might be nice to just let that emerge out of the action of the stories.

We kept commenting on how perfect it would be if it turned out Ben Miller's Sherrif was the bastard son of the Master, since the Master was, after all, in this time for a good bit. In fact, I'm kind of surprised that the Doctor is even allowed to come that close to crossing his own path.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Simond on September 07, 2014, 05:55:54 PM
That was the sort of episode that would have been described as a 'romp' if it were a play a few decades ago.
Ben Miller was born to play The Master.  Clearly.
Totally agree with this. Ben Miller is Anthony Ainsley meets whatshisface from The Princess Bride as the Master of Nottingham.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 07, 2014, 08:21:20 PM
Yeah, not sure I liked that much.  Didn't really rack up against The Time Warrior.

However;

Jenna Coleman.  Jesus.  Yes, Please.

Ben Miller was born to play The Master.  Clearly.

We are sharing the same minds. First moment I saw Miller, I didn't recognize him from Primeval but I thought, "That guy needs to play the Master." Then I looked him up and was even more sure that he should play the Master. He won't but still.

I liked the episode right up until "We fire this gold arrow into a pylon and somehow that wee little thing that shouldn't even remotely be near the engines suddenly creates enough fuel to get it into orbit." GAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH. Are you not even going to fucking TRY to come up with an explanation that a fucking 4-year old could poke holes in? That was just STUPID.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 07, 2014, 08:27:52 PM
I think Gatiss' Who scripts always have to have one moment where he's basically trolling fans who care about plausibility. Usually near the end. I don't know that I mind it so much. I mean, shit, people watched ST: TNG in a mood of tolerant bemusement for years with stuff about reversing the tachyon-baryon polarity on the ass-whackifying probetron etc.--I think the meta that Gatiss is doing is, "Come on, you watched this shit for decades without whining too much about that kind of crap, so here's a golden arrow boosting a robot ship into orbit for you".


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: satael on September 08, 2014, 02:48:17 AM
Robot of Sherwood: What Was Cut (http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/robot-of-sherwood-what-was-cut-66300.htm). That cut part does change the feeling of the episode a bit in my opinion (however minute it is in the overall plot)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on September 08, 2014, 04:53:06 AM
That kind of makes more sense because I'm sure the sheriff did say something about being half man, half machine at one point.

Overall I thought it was an entirely forgettable episode. I don't know why I feel the need to pass comment on each and every episode because seriously, it's not a show that's worth it. I think I watch it out of nostalgia now to be honest.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: satael on September 08, 2014, 06:56:23 AM
That kind of makes more sense because I'm sure the sheriff did say something about being half man, half machine at one point.

Overall I thought it was an entirely forgettable episode. I don't know why I feel the need to pass comment on each and every episode because seriously, it's not a show that's worth it. I think I watch it out of nostalgia now to be honest.

I keep watching Dr. Who (for all it's faults) mainly due to it still having it's fun moments and retaining a bit of that "sense of wonder" that seems to be lacking in most of today's sci-fi shows.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 08, 2014, 08:07:50 AM
I like Capaldi.

EDIT :  I was aware that they cut shit due to ISIS, but it's a shame.  That might have lent a bit more to the story.  Oh well.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on September 08, 2014, 08:29:42 AM
You probably all saw this already but a nice little touch was the Doctor calling up imagines of the fictional Robin Hood, including a TV version where (as we saw on the Tardis screen) the character was played by

(http://i.imgur.com/QeQTHLd.jpg)

The Doctor! Or possibly by some guy called Patrick Troughton.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on September 08, 2014, 10:16:12 AM
Yeah. No wonder he doesn't believe in Robin Hood, he was Robin Hood!

I think maybe the thing that bugs me a little even with slight little nothing episodes like this is that they are pushing too hard to always make the Doctor's character (in both senses of the word) the central point or idea of the show itself. It didn't used to be that way--the show often wasn't self-consciously thinking about "who is the Doctor? Why does he do what he does? What motivates and sustains him? What is the result of his adventures?"  Which is what made it rather precious and interesting when an episode DID roll out some sort of self-aware reflection--"I'm a Time Lord, Sarah, I walk in infinity". 

So here they need the Doctor to not believe in Robin Hood because he doesn't believe in mythical, larger-than-life heroes who are about pure goodness and benevolence, which is then a metatextual commentary on himself. But this doesn't gibe with the character's history at all: he's met plenty of good folks, some of them crusaders for the right and the light. Sure, he more often meets heroes with clay feet, or corrupt and cowardly businessmen/soldiers/administrators. It would be understandable if the Doctor were cynical or even curmudgeonly, but not to the point of thinking that history is just full of nothing but self-interested bastards. Especially not now: he just spent a thousand years defending a town full of sickeningly sweet people from Whoville singing about Christmas every day. (Jesus, I just realized that the people of Trenzalore are Whos from Whoville, basically--I wonder if that was deliberate?)   But the need to have the Doctor thinking about himself and have the show provide metatextual commentary on the Doctor trumps some kind of consistency, so there we go.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 08, 2014, 11:33:34 AM
The heavy handed meta "Doctor WHOOOOOOOOOOO" shit is really jarring and grating and is really hurting an otherwise fantastic performance by Capaldi. Or in other words, the same shit that fucked up Matt Smith's is fucking this one up as well. Just write a good story. Stop commenting on the whole concept of the show to prove how much you hate it, and how much disdain you have for the fans.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raguel on September 08, 2014, 12:15:22 PM
I can't think of a single scene in this episode I didn't absolutely hate.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raph on September 08, 2014, 08:39:15 PM
I think this ep should have been Capaldi's first. It was

- more coherent than the dinosaur and robots thing
- exposed plenty of the new Doctor's character changes
- but wouldn't have scared away Tennant/Smith fans

My daughter might still be watching if it had been first.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 08, 2014, 09:11:58 PM
Anyone leaving the show after they switched doctors has no place watching this show anyways.  Complain about writing all you want but actor switching is one of this shows core concepts.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Raph on September 09, 2014, 03:26:37 PM
It's not actor switching per se, it's who they switched to, and how.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on September 09, 2014, 04:56:21 PM
I don't know if it's just the overall writing, but I can't get into this season of Who.  I don't have a problem with Capaldi as an actor, but he just doesn't do it for me as the Doctor.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 10, 2014, 03:02:09 AM
I had the same problem with Smith at first.  Give him a chance.

Though Smith got better and the writing didn't, so it could just be that.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on September 13, 2014, 09:09:43 PM
This one was amazing. Even with the Moffatry.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 14, 2014, 10:55:35 AM
Really? I thought the last 5 minutes ruined it.  It's like they just HAD to make Clara an even more special snowflake and somehow tie the lore even more together in unnecessary ways.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 14, 2014, 12:25:12 PM
My daughter asked :  So what was the thing under the cover then ?

To which I was forced to reply 'Ah, that was a Moffat Plothole honey, the worst baddie in the Dr Who Universe.'

More smoke and mirrors.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Malakili on September 14, 2014, 12:26:49 PM
It's like they just HAD to make Clara an even more special snowflake and somehow tie the lore even more together in unnecessary ways.

That ship sailed so long ago that it doesn't even phase me anymore.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 14, 2014, 12:49:55 PM
My daughter asked :  So what was the thing under the cover then ?

To which I was forced to reply 'Ah, that was a Moffat Plothole honey, the worst baddie in the Dr Who Universe.'

More smoke and mirrors.


I mean it quite literally could have been another kid in the orphanage fucking with them as they mentioned briefly.  I think what annoys me is that everything in the episode seemed to be to fuck with us the viewers and not necessarily the characters in a way that felt more manipulative than anything.  The bit on the bed? Genuinely scary until the end of the episode then that scare just becomes confusing and anger inducing.

The episode was about fear and the tricks it plays on you, great.  Some of the stuff in the episode can be explainined by fear getting the better of the characters but the chalkboard, the coffee mug, the airlock opening and the thing on the bed were never given plausible explanations,


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 14, 2014, 01:07:17 PM
Rewatch it ;  The Doctor Stole the coffee.

It was a really good episode right up until the point you thought about it.  Classic Moffat.

I love Capaldi tho.  He's so Tom Baker, it's not real.  Fantastic.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tmon on September 15, 2014, 09:33:32 AM
I love Capaldi tho.  He's so Tom Baker, it's not real.  Fantastic.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets a Tom Baker vibe from Capaldi's Dr.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 16, 2014, 08:37:06 PM
Capaldi is fantastic.

The episode, though, was TOTAL SHIT. I mean, it had style, it had dialogue bits, it had creepy moments and atmosphere...

and it was entirely for naught. Not one fucking thing came out of that episode except I must have sprained my eyes rolling them so hard. It was Blink without a villain, conflict or reason for being. Not to mention just flat out shitting on previously established "rules" about time travel like "don't cross your own time stream or the universe will assplode" thing which if you break it, it better be for a damn good reason. So we break that rule so Clara can unfuck her date. Really? The bedsheet? Great bit of set up for a creepy reveal and then it just vanishes because... because we had to have one more fucking episode where we try to dissect why the Doctor is the Doctor. Haven't we done that shit enough? Stop exploring it, start writing good stories where the Doctor goes in to a weird planet or time period and saves the fucking day from robots or something. Like last week's only without the fucking golden arrow.

I mean, I'd watch the Clara Oswald & Danny Pink hour, but that's not the show I'm tuning in for.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: MahrinSkel on September 16, 2014, 08:53:57 PM
I think they were trying to do something different from the usual "Boyfriend gets dragged along for the ride", but I'm with Ironwood: If you're going to have an offscreen menace that turns out to be fear-induced hysteria, KEEP THE DAMNED THING OFF SCREEN.

Because by putting the damned floating bedsheet in, you either have a big damned (and completely un-necessary) plot-hole, or you totally defeated the apparent "point" of the episode (again, un-necessarily, if you're going to call it back later you don't have to be so damned hamfisted about your foreshadowing).

--Dave (damn, I seem to have used the word 'damned' a lot.  Moffat's hamfisted writing style is contagious, I'm usually much more creative in my expletives)


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 17, 2014, 04:46:19 AM
Also, Gallifrey was meant to be time locked.  They shouldn't have been there, assuming that THERE is the barn.  It could, of course, be a barn on another planet.

Gah.  Wank.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 17, 2014, 09:58:04 AM
But then that means the John Hurt Doctor was THERE back when he and Tennant and Smith met up so it couldn't be Gallifrey although they clearly intimated that it IS Gallifrey. Of course, if you "time lock" something, how does that affect time travel going in and out in its past?

The plot holes are entirely too large to handwave away. Utter shit.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on September 17, 2014, 10:12:48 AM
Who dreams of writing stories about a mysterious alien on the run from his even more mysterious and seemingly all-powerful people and decides ok, we'll show him growing up with nice middle class parents who worry about whether he'll win a place in the space academy and he lives in a barn.

Fear is like a companion because he was afraid of his companion, get it? Did you? Did you get it? It was Clara all along!!  :vv:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 17, 2014, 10:38:04 AM
Fear is like a companion because he was afraid of his companion, get it? Did you? Did you get it? It was Clara all along!!  :vv:

This statement and the frightening realization that it thoroughly encapsulates the entire point of this episode makes me want a club a little baby seal.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 17, 2014, 10:39:19 AM
 :facepalm:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: DraconianOne on September 18, 2014, 10:51:29 AM
The plot holes are entirely too large to handwave away. Utter shit.

Come on - it's Dr Who.  That's the entire 50 years of the series in a nutshell.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 18, 2014, 11:03:42 AM
No. No it fucking isn't. Look, I may not have watched every episode but the writers on this show have never let the fact that their monsters are made of painted bubble wrap stop them from crafting stories that at least TRY to make some goddamn sense. This isn't "dilithium crystals" type of handwaving, this is "just forget about that really important shit I showed you halfway through the episode, I just did that because it looked kind of cool, it didn't mean shit, LALALALA LOOK AT CLARA OSWALD'S ASS!!!!"

While I'm perfectly happy to look at Clara Oswald's ass, I still want a story that doesn't make me scream "WHAT????" at the TV every 15 minutes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: rattran on September 19, 2014, 04:55:43 PM
I think, Haemish, Doctor Who just isn't a show for you. I figured out it wasn't a show for me at the end of Smith's first series. Just watch the old ones, and move along. Check back for when the Moffatry is done.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 19, 2014, 04:57:32 PM
How dare you, Sir.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 19, 2014, 05:00:49 PM
I think, Haemish, Doctor Who just isn't a show for you. I figured out it wasn't a show for me at the end of Smith's first series. Just watch the old ones, and move along. Check back for when the Moffatry is done.

Like it or not DW is massively popular right now and the idea that anyone wants to turn that ship around is ridiculous.  Like it or not the moffatry has made the show millions of dollars so it is how they say in Aurora "Game on"


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on September 19, 2014, 05:57:15 PM
Ok lets look at ratings pre-Moffat

First three episodes of series 2, chosen because it's my favourite (Rose! Rose!  :cry2:)
New Earth 8.62m
Tooth and Claw 9.24m
School reunion 8.3m

First three episodes of current series (series 8)
Deep Breath 9.17
Into the Dalek 7.29
Robot of Sherwood 7.28

Source: Wikiwakipedia

I’m being extremely kind to the Grand Moff  because the series two ratings are overnight only while the series 8 ratings include iPlayer viewings which actually add a couple of million to the totals.

So in conclusion, I submit the show can be successful without Moffat.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Setanta on September 19, 2014, 08:56:32 PM
I agree with Haemish on this one. Special effects have improved over the 70s versions by an enormous amount. Storyline not so much. I still remember that when Jon Pertwee was the Doctor he couldn't leave the Earth... ever, because the BBC couldn't afford the SFX needed. So his Tardis was locked to Earth and could only travel through time - yet the seasons were still freaking awesome (even with plates of jelly and tinfoil as SFX). It took good writing to go from Troughton's time AND space Pertwee's time only yet the writers made it work.

Tom Baker's series had some great writing and then it started to go down hill (seriously, Tristan from All Creatures Great and Small as the Doctor). The reboot was great and while Moffat wrote one or two excellent stories for doctors pre-Cappaldi, that seems to be his strength. Giving him ownership of the story is just meh.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 20, 2014, 02:35:35 PM
More recycled predictable boaby.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: apocrypha on September 20, 2014, 11:55:10 PM
The golden arrow was the end of it for me. Haven't bothered watching the last 2, I think I'm done.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Malakili on September 21, 2014, 08:39:58 AM
Well, I like a good heist, so this wasn't too bad.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 21, 2014, 09:19:58 AM
It's really, really not a good heist when your man has a time machine.

And the handwaving 'I can't use my time machine for this' was just garbage.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 21, 2014, 04:31:59 PM
It's really, really not a good heist when your man has a time machine.

And the handwaving 'I can't use my time machine for this' was just garbage.


This seems a bit nitpicky.  By that token just never bother writing a superman story ever because every one of them has to make an excuse as to why he can't overpower a situation.  The tardis is kind of the same, it NEEDS to be handwaved away sometimes.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on September 21, 2014, 05:10:24 PM
I have no opinion on this Doctor.  I don't like or dislike him, and after each episode I have to struggle to remember what he looks like and his personality treats.  This is probably due to me only ever seeing the new series- 10 and 11 were both physically comedic dandies, and maybe that's left me unable to appreciate a doctor who is supposedly more of a throwback.  Although, come to think of it, 9 did the brooding well and seemed to have depth- there is just something about Capaldi that leaves me lukewarm.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 21, 2014, 05:58:34 PM
By that token just never bother writing a superman story ever because every one of them has to make an excuse as to why he can't overpower a situation.  The tardis is kind of the same, it NEEDS to be handwaved away sometimes.

I get that.  But it's not hard to write a REAL reason.

A solar storm.  It's not like you can park the TARDIS there the day before and wait or anything.   :uhrr:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 22, 2014, 10:27:01 AM
It was also horribly predictable. I knew the reason they were in there the minute they "stumbled" upon the Teller while escaping the utterly invisible security. Seriously, for "the most secure bank in the world" they were just incredibly inept at security, not to mention forgetting the whole "we have a creature that detects criminal intent but somehow can't detect four people who can't possibly be thinking of anything but criminal intent" thing.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Merusk on September 22, 2014, 01:59:03 PM
I find it telling of my opinion of the show that I've had better things to do or forgotten it was on for all 3-4 weeks after the premier episode. Kinda sad.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 27, 2014, 05:16:38 PM
Damn, that was really, really good.  Apart from the last five seconds of moffatry.

Seriously, make time for it, it's was worth it, I think.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on September 27, 2014, 11:06:13 PM
Deep cover! Deep cover!

And Clara's so goddamn hot.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 28, 2014, 12:52:53 AM
I still don't get the whole 'hates soldiers' thing. It really really really pisses me right the fuck off. If he's trying to say it's a result of him coming to terms with what he did in the Time War, I ain't buying it. It's ham-fisted and so out of character with the history of the show. I really like Danny Pink, though and I hope he gets to do some time travel before he and Clara settle down to get married and have babies.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on September 28, 2014, 03:02:02 AM
I liked it but although it was all explained at the end I did feel the Doctor was being a bit of a dick.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 28, 2014, 07:38:38 AM
He IS a bit of a dick and that is awesome.

Also I think the whole soldier hating thing has more to do with the particular incarnation than anything.  Sort of like "I'm old, cranky and tired of all this bullshit" especially when it comes soldiers.

I mean no previous doctor liked fish fingers and custard either so it's not out of character to suddenly like/dislike things when they regenerate.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on September 28, 2014, 02:26:50 PM
The Pink/Doctor interaction where Pink gets all soldiery was one of the high points of that ep. Calling the Doctor on his bullshit was a nice piece of characterization.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 28, 2014, 07:27:49 PM
I really like how once Pink got a handle on the situation he was quick to get his shit together.  He was only Mickey for all of 10min and then he was able to shine as intelligent and capable.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 29, 2014, 09:40:45 AM
Yeah, Pink has become the new Centurion Rory only less comedy. I really dig him - too bad you can see him going away with Clara.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Threash on September 29, 2014, 03:07:01 PM
That leap was some michael jordan shit though, maybe he does teach PE.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 29, 2014, 04:12:30 PM
Yeah, that was bullshit.  But hey ho.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on September 29, 2014, 06:59:43 PM
It felt less bullshit than a golden arrow powering a rocket ship into the atmosphere.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Malakili on September 29, 2014, 07:02:44 PM
All soldiers can do that.  It's part of the training.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Evildrider on September 29, 2014, 09:13:13 PM
It's cuz he's black.  amirite? :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on September 30, 2014, 03:49:18 AM
No, I get it.  It wasn't plot or dialogue bullshit so I gave it a pass.  I liked this one a lot.  I'm also hopeful for the next one.  Spiders.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on October 01, 2014, 10:44:32 PM
Yeah, but no more RoboGarrus.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on October 02, 2014, 09:04:19 AM
It's cuz he's black.  amirite? :why_so_serious:

No, it was clearly because he was a PE teacher.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 04, 2014, 03:39:11 PM
Absurd, but didn't mind it all.  Elena liked it.

Still liking him.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Fraeg on October 05, 2014, 06:32:26 PM
I really like how once Pink got a handle on the situation he was quick to get his shit together.  He was only Mickey for all of 10min and then he was able to shine as intelligent and capable.

this, I was groaning at the thought of mickey 2.0


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 05, 2014, 07:43:01 PM
Didn't care about the core absurdity. This was good. Good character work, good drama, this is actually moving the whole show forward. Almost to the point that I'm wondering if Moffat was held back by the ghost of RTD--e.g., Matt Smith was more of an RTD style Doctor and Capaldi is at last the Doctor that Moffat really wanted to work with. I dunno. I don't care. This season is interesting to me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 05, 2014, 07:50:54 PM
My girlfriend loves the line "I'll slap you so hard you'll regenerate."


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on October 05, 2014, 10:32:58 PM
My girlfriend loves the line "I'll slap you so hard you'll regenerate."

That was a good line. The rest of the show was utter shit from start to finish. One day we'll have a show about a time-traveling adventurer who brings along various companions rather than a bunch of somewhat uninteresting people with quirky personalities who happen to meet a time traveler every once in a while.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Malakili on October 05, 2014, 10:56:17 PM


That was a good line. The rest of the show was utter shit from start to finish. One day we'll have a show about a time-traveling adventurer who brings along various companions rather than a bunch of somewhat uninteresting people with quirky personalities who happen to meet a time traveler every once in a while.

Part of the problem is they are setting up Clara leaving.

Honestly, they should have just ended her run as companion when she jumped into his timeline.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Tebonas on October 06, 2014, 02:04:30 AM
And to think they had the perfect nonconventional exit method with that. Dispersion into the timeline sacrifice yada yada, selfless hero bla bla. That should have satisfied their hard-on for her as well as this Clara wankfest we see here.

I really like the new season, I adore Capaldi. But they lay it on a bit thick with Mary Sue Clara.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 06, 2014, 04:45:11 AM
I agree with you both.  It's quite clear that he's trying to make the Clara Exit a 'Big Thing' to the point we have to wonder which Promised Land she'll end up in.

However, I don't care.  I am really, really, really digging this Doctor who, to my mind, is taking it right back to my Old Skool Dr Vibe.  People (even here) have said 'wait, he's kind of a dick now' and Good God, they're right.  He's awesome.  He even brought out the Tom Baker Yo-yo, much to my delight.

The only thing that annoys me is his written obsession with young Clara, but even a Timelord would want to hit that, so I can't really get that upset.

I would utterly kill for 3 things :

1 - Capaldi.
2 - Donna as the companion.
3 - Better scripts set in more Alien Places.

But hey ho, I'm still finding it more interesting solely due to this New Doctor.  We'll see how long it is before he Moffats it up.  The Moon one was STILL an absurd fairy tale, of course, but as I said, I didn't mind it as much as I would've if Matt had been doing it....

I also really like the guy playing Pink.  He seems far better than the material he's being given.  Was he on anything else ?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Bunk on October 06, 2014, 08:43:25 AM
Didn't really care for this episode much, to be honest. Just too out there on all the various ideas. The moons shifting so suddenly it has 1G gravity, because hatching makes your mass increase 100 fold? Moon spider bacteria thingies, that just happen to spin webs, because spidery? I could get past that (you have to to enjoy this show) but the whole episode was really just about Clara getting pissed off at the Doctor, and it wasn't terribly fun.

Oh, and now do we have to end every episode with one minor event that is so grossly absurd on a Physics level it makes my head hurt? First the golden arrow of penetrating fuely-ness, now we have space chicken shits out a new egg right after its born that happens to be the same size as the egg it just hatched from.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 06, 2014, 08:54:27 AM
Fair enough.  A lot of people were also turned off by the glaringly obvious Abortion parallels.  I long ago decided not to give a fuck about 'science' in this show (because it got Jettisoned a long fucking time ago and got even worse when Moffat decided it was a fairy tale).   It's a fight not even worth having anymore.  I mean, we had fucking spitfires in space in one season and, even better, it took TEN MINUTES to create them from scratch.  Seriously, ten minutes according to the internal chronology of the show.  You couldn't even get REAL spitfires launched in ten fucking minutes.

So I just ignored the science and the abortion and concentrated on Hot Angry Clara and my new Favorite Doctor.  I think I'll be doing that all season, especially when Moffat unleashes his HEAVEN-SWCHANG later on.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on October 06, 2014, 09:52:24 AM
Hot Angry Clara and my new Favorite Doctor.

This right here.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on October 06, 2014, 11:22:01 AM
Oh Capaldi is absolutely hitting it out of the park. He's chewing every bit of scenery he can and they are giving him some good lines. And Danny Pink is my new favorite companion even though he technically isn't. He should be. Danny Pink, both the character and the actor, are awesome. The actor's name is Samuel Anderson (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1556238/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t41) - linked to his IMDB page. He's killing it with such a small amount of material that I'd love to see him continue as a companion after Clara's gone. Maybe he can knock her up then continue with the Doctor while she fucks off home. Love the actress, starting to really hate what they are doing with her character.

Science getting left behind wouldn't bug me so much if it weren't so obviously daft. I mean, even grade schoolers know that if you just remove the moon, shit goes all sorts of bad. Magic baby egg moons don't just reappear and if they did, MORE BAD THINGS HAPPEN. This isn't normal Doctor Who timey-wimey science, this is full on "IT'S MAGIC!" territory and it's lazy ass writing. It's writers determining that what they want to say is more important than how you say it, or how you get to that point. At least make some fucking effort for shit to make sense.

As for the Doctor's sudden revelation that he can somehow "see the future" - I don't even know where to start with that. Because I'm pretty fucking sure if that were true, it would have come up sometime in the last 50 odd years of stories. Oh right, it's not true, you just pulled it out of your ass just this minute didn't you?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 06, 2014, 12:41:41 PM
When you've lived for that long and time traveled that much I don't believe it's so much seeing the future as remembering what you've already experienced.  There's also the bit where they look into the time rift or whatever and it drives some people mad which I had always assumed was getting a glimpse of the entirety of space and time all at once.

So while not a Who expert my take was always that knowledge of events is all there just very, very inaccessible.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 06, 2014, 12:48:14 PM
Science getting left behind wouldn't bug me so much if it weren't so obviously daft. I mean, even grade schoolers know that if you just remove the moon, shit goes all sorts of bad. Magic baby egg moons don't just reappear and if they did, MORE BAD THINGS HAPPEN. This isn't normal Doctor Who timey-wimey science, this is full on "IT'S MAGIC!" territory and it's lazy ass writing. It's writers determining that what they want to say is more important than how you say it, or how you get to that point. At least make some fucking effort for shit to make sense.

Well, yes, but I've ranted about that for about 5 or more seasons now.  I can't do it anymore.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Morat20 on October 06, 2014, 08:10:14 PM
As for the Doctor's sudden revelation that he can somehow "see the future" - I don't even know where to start with that. Because I'm pretty fucking sure if that were true, it would have come up sometime in the last 50 odd years of stories. Oh right, it's not true, you just pulled it out of your ass just this minute didn't you?
I honestly figured he was just lying. He didn't want to go into the shit about 'fixed points'. This was a fixed point. He was in the middle of it.

And he undoubtedly knew it was a huge moment for earth. He just decided not to meddle. Wasn't his business. Easier to make up some bullshit about fuzzy future vision, as the ensuing argument showed. Even with his BS excuse he got flack from Clara.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on October 06, 2014, 09:47:11 PM
Science getting left behind wouldn't bug me so much if it weren't so obviously daft. I mean, even grade schoolers know that if you just remove the moon, shit goes all sorts of bad. Magic baby egg moons don't just reappear and if they did, MORE BAD THINGS HAPPEN. This isn't normal Doctor Who timey-wimey science, this is full on "IT'S MAGIC!" territory and it's lazy ass writing. It's writers determining that what they want to say is more important than how you say it, or how you get to that point. At least make some fucking effort for shit to make sense.

Well, yes, but I've ranted about that for about 5 or more seasons now.  I can't do it anymore.


http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-super-friends-villains-that-didnt-give-4023252A/

Check out #5- the plot made slightly more sense. 


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Khaldun on October 07, 2014, 08:50:34 AM
Doctor #9 said he can sense time. Doctor #10 said things of this sort a few times. I think it's fairly clear he has a kind of general temporal awareness, probably partly because of a telepathic connection to the TARDIS.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 07, 2014, 08:53:22 AM
As for the Doctor's sudden revelation that he can somehow "see the future" - I don't even know where to start with that. Because I'm pretty fucking sure if that were true, it would have come up sometime in the last 50 odd years of stories. Oh right, it's not true, you just pulled it out of your ass just this minute didn't you?
I honestly figured he was just lying. He didn't want to go into the shit about 'fixed points'. This was a fixed point. He was in the middle of it.

And he undoubtedly knew it was a huge moment for earth. He just decided not to meddle. Wasn't his business. Easier to make up some bullshit about fuzzy future vision, as the ensuing argument showed. Even with his BS excuse he got flack from Clara.

You also have to bear in mind the last time he meddled with a fixed point on Mars, it...didn't work out so well.

I'm not surprised he ran.  I am surprised he lied about it.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 07, 2014, 09:01:03 AM
Doctor #9 said he can sense time. Doctor #10 said things of this sort a few times. I think it's fairly clear he has a kind of general temporal awareness, probably partly because of a telepathic connection to the TARDIS.

There are also other episodes that go specifically into 'I don't know what could happen here, I only know what might have'.  Which is part of the fundamental problem/awesomeness that is Doctor Who.  He knew about the Great Fire of London.  He didn't really know that he caused it fighting Terreleptils.  He knew about Fang Rock.  He has no idea it was all his fault. Etc.  Etc.  Etc.

This is what usually happens when Who goes down a real history lesson.  This episode just took something we didn't know about yet.  It also doesn't bother me that he could suddenly figure out what happened once it did;  this is a chap that Looked at the Earth ONCE and realized the Daleks had been meddling with Time.  There's clearly Some Extra Sensory Time Lord thing and you see it time and time again, so I don't much care about it and can swallow it.

Again, the Doctor here is much easier to 'get' if you look back at Waters of Mars, though that episode was just fanfuckingtastic compared to Moon Egg.

Except without Clara in a floaty short skirt.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 07, 2014, 10:12:41 AM
This review was shamelessly stolen from Another Site and I post here because I think the guy has some truth to what he writes.

Not all the truth, of course, but it does highlight some of my own reaction, rightly or wrongly.

http://www.philipsandifer.com/2014/10/kill-moon-review.html (http://www.philipsandifer.com/2014/10/kill-moon-review.html)

Also, Clara.  Floaty Skirt.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on October 07, 2014, 11:22:08 AM
But Waters of Mars was total shit.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 07, 2014, 01:05:51 PM
Primacy and recency effect there i think.  It had a fuck awful ending but was good until then. Tennant was in fine form.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Surlyboi on October 11, 2014, 11:04:23 PM
Christ, that dress.

And Foxes singing Queen.

What was this episode about?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 12, 2014, 03:29:17 AM
I didn't like it.

Not even worth a mention, really.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: palmer_eldritch on October 12, 2014, 06:02:20 AM
Christ, that dress.

And Foxes singing Queen.

I noticed those things too.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Triforcer on October 12, 2014, 08:46:37 AM
Yeah, that episode wasn't great, but I thought one point at the end was interesting.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: HaemishM on October 13, 2014, 08:14:18 PM
I actually liked it. I mean, it was a one-off but it was the kind of one-off that didn't have me saying "WHAT?" by the end. It felt like Classic Who one-offs.

Now, if they could really stop hitting us over the head over and over again with the meta-narrative about what being a Companion means, that would be nice.

Also, Flapper Clara may be my favorite Clara.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 13, 2014, 09:33:06 PM
I actually liked it. I mean, it was a one-off but it was the kind of one-off that didn't have me saying "WHAT?" by the end. It felt like Classic Who one-offs.

Now, if they could really stop hitting us over the head over and over again with the meta-narrative about what being a Companion means, that would be nice.

Also, Flapper Clara may be my favorite Clara.

PJ's Clara does funny things to me.


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: slog on October 18, 2014, 07:10:29 PM
In the mummy episode, Clara calls her boyfriend on the enhanced cell phone, who is in a different time.  If the doctor brings her back at the exact point he picked her up, did that conversation happen?


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Malakili on October 18, 2014, 09:07:19 PM
In the mummy episode, Clara calls her boyfriend on the enhanced cell phone, who is in a different time.  If the doctor brings her back at the exact point he picked her up, did that conversation happen?

 :psyduck:


Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: Ironwood on October 19, 2014, 07:52:32 PM
In the mummy episode, Clara calls her boyfriend on the enhanced cell phone, who is in a different time.  If the doctor brings her back at the exact point he picked her up, did that conversation happen?

Yes, but it would confuse him and he'd forget it.  Like the Doctor meeting himself.

I guess.

 :ye_gods:

Also, I quite liked some of the mechanics of the recent episode, even if was a straight up scare fest for the kiddies (Elena loved it, kinda).  This series, despite having not really much better writing than Smith is being made awesome for me by Capaldi.  He can seem to do no wrong in his Doctor for me.



Title: Re: Dr. Who
Post by: NowhereMan on October 20, 2014, 05:14:02 AM
That last one was just painful from any kind of science sense and also had the Doctor . In that sense it was actually kind of painful to watch. I also think I missed the whole bit where Mr. Pink asked her to stop travelling in the Tardis or did she tell him she was going to, change her mind and then just not tell him about that for some reason? Finally the  was kind of painful.