Home Forums Ganymede & Titan Forum Doctor Who – Series 5 – Broadcast Discussion (NO SPOILERS)

Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 256 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #6198
    Jonathan Capps
    Keymaster

    As the old thread is getting dangerously close to paginating and we’re now into the broadcast of series 5, let’s start afresh.

    I think the best rules for this thread would be to ban all known spoilers for future episodes and keep it to discussion of episodes that have already aired in the UK, information released through official channels and good old fashioned speculation.

    So, GO.

    #109273
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    In episode four the Doctor gets eaten by a Grue oh shiiiiiiiiit

    #109274
    Andrew
    Participant

    Interesting Moffat interview:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00rlx6k/Front_Row_30_03_2010/

    Totally agree on his take on a black and/or female Doctor. And fascinated by the talk of an episode that ‘had’ to be sent to RTD in advance.

    #109278
    Plastic Percy
    Participant

    In reply to the question what Prisoner Zero was originally arrested for, seeing as all he did for most of the episode was stand around snarling, he was probably arrested for loitering.

    #109285
    TheLeen
    Participant

    German blog about the English language explains custard by the means of Who:

    http://49suns.de/2010-04-07/englisch-lernen-mit-tv-serien-28-custard

    #109289
    Alex
    Participant

    The official site has some clips from episode 2 up. Looks interesting, a few nice lines and the explanation of why Amy doesn?t explode like confidence when floating in space in the clip seen in the trailers. Also appears we will have an introduction to each episode from the Moff which is nice.

    #109293
    Andrew
    Participant

    > the explanation of why Amy doesn?t explode like confidence when floating in space

    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html

    #109295
    pfm
    Participant

    > And fascinated by the talk of an episode that ?had? to be sent to RTD in advance.

    It’s got to be the one that features the Cybus Cybermen. Of course, RTD didn’t create the Cybermen (‘what???’ I hear you scream) but maybe the use of the Cybus model, presumably coming from the alt-universe that RTD created for series 2, was sent to be okayed by him, if only out of courtesy…? Either that or there’s some connection to Torchwood that RTD needed to look at to make sure everything’s kept in line for the U.S. series he’s working on.

    Does anyone else love Moffat’s frankness in interviews? And his bordering on ‘fuck you’ attitude?? You get the feeling he could slag off the RTD era in a big way if he felt like it. Heck, he makes no bones about how shit he thinks a lot of the classic series is, though IMO that makes him much more of a true fan than if he was like ‘oh everything’s brilliant’. His gloves-off, rose-tinted-specs off way of thinking’s gonna bring us some excellent television, that’s for sure.

    #109243
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    >Does anyone else love Moffat?s frankness in interviews? And his bordering on ?fuck you? attitude??

    I wouldn’t say I love it, but it’s very noticeable. RTD seemed a lot more comfortable at the PR side of things.

    #109297
    Alex
    Participant
    #109301
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    Interesting Moffat interview:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00rlx6k/Front_Row_30_03_2010/

    Totally agree on his take on a black and/or female Doctor. And fascinated by the talk of an episode that ?had? to be sent to RTD in advance.

    Is there a transcription or a YouTube link of this vid somewhere? I can’t access it from here.

    #109302
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    Wait, no. Got it working at work with some jiggery-pokery.

    #109303
    Danny Stephenson
    Keymaster

    I can’t hear the voice of the host of that radio clip without thinking of this Not the Nine O’Clock News Sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npEwra5344s

    #109304
    Tarka Dal
    Participant

    Re-watching 11th Hour for the 4th or 5th time it struck me that Amy’s wardrobe appears to be painted a Tardis-esque blue, maybe a shade or two lighter, but surely a deliberate touch.

    It’s early days, but that really was five out of five stuff wasn’t it?

    #109305
    Rad
    Participant

    As well as the Front Row interview, there was a programme on Good Friday about Douglas Adams’ time as script editor, ‘The Doctor and Douglas’. I’m not sure about it. The justification for the programme’s assertion that Douglas Adams ‘changed Doctor Who forever’ is based on the fact that when RTD gave Julie Gardener some Doctor Who vids to watch she really enjoyed ‘City of Death’ and it is fast and funny like the new Who. Not that much new and probably not strong enough for a national radio slot but some of you might enjoy it – hurry, in 12 hours it’s gone.

    #109306
    pfm
    Participant

    > but that really was five out of five stuff wasn?t it?

    Yep I would give it a 5/5, though it took three viewings to come to that conclusion (the last time in HD and not surrounded by people who are still wondering why Tennant’s not in it anymore (despite every one of them seeing him regenerate on New Year’s Day ffs…), which helped a lot).

    Beans are evil. Bad, bad beans!

    #109308
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    I hate yoghurt. it’s just stuff with bits in.

    #109309
    Tanya Jones
    Participant

    I suppose soup can be described the same way…

    #109310
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    Beans too, probably.

    #109315
    Seb Patrick
    Keymaster

    WELL THAT WAS A BIT GOOD WASN’T IT

    #109316
    ori-STUDFARM
    Participant

    I think Matt Smith has just become my new favourite Doctor…even more so than Tom Baker, my childhood Doctor!!

    #109318
    hummingbird
    Participant

    I think I already like him more than Tennant.

    I’m still trying to figure out who it is that Smith’s Doctor reminds me of ….

    #109319
    Carlito
    Participant

    George McFly?

    #109320
    Seb Patrick
    Keymaster

    >I?m still trying to figure out who it is that Smith?s Doctor reminds me of ?.

    The Doctor.

    #109321
    Tarka Dal
    Participant

    Smart-Arse.

    I see elements of McCoy, Troughton and Davidson.

    #109322
    ChrisM
    Participant

    That was good, although I found ‘the Queen’s working classy jive shtick corny, but I suppose it was meant to be. The smilers were great creepy monsters.

    My virgin box (oo-er) is a bit irritating at the moment though It keeps pausing and jumping and there’s a clicking sound and the volume will suddenly reduce. It’s not enough to ruin the plotting but it gets a bit irritating after a while… I hope it rectifies soon so I can watch a repeat without that nonsense.

    #109323
    hummingbird
    Participant

    > I see elements of McCoy, Troughton and Davidson.

    Davidson, definitely. But there’s someone else (non-Who) that he strongly reminds me of.
    It’ll come to me eventually.

    #109324
    ChrisM
    Participant

    Oh and I caught the crack at the end. I missed it last time. (Mainly because it appeared on a screen with another graph line on it, if I remember correctly.)

    #109327
    Carlito
    Participant

    > Davidson, definitely. But there?s someone else (non-Who) that he strongly reminds me of.
    It?ll come to me eventually.

    Saw someone online comparing him to Basil Fawlty :S

    #109329
    Seb Patrick
    Keymaster

    >Smart-Arse.

    It wasn’t even that, really. Just that what Smith manages to do – astonishingly – is embody so many interpretations of the character. More than perhaps anyone before him, it’s not that he’s “the Eleventh Doctor” (as Moffat says, there aren’t eleven Doctors, there’s one Doctor with eleven faces) he’s just… the Doctor. Absolutely and entirely. It’s remarkable.

    #109330
    pfm
    Participant

    > It?s remarkable

    This. ‘The Beast Below’ was essentially the 4th episode shot (I think…) and he has the character so solidly down it’s brilliant to watch. Surely stuff like the little jump over the bench is enough to endear him to everyone watching, and he really can get away with that amount of playfulness without it seeming off.

    Matt’s casting is a stroke of genius only matched by Karen’s. Even when covered in sick (maybe especially so, which could be worrying…) I think I could happily watch her forever. Somehow she’s playing everything at just the right level, feisty and a little bit wacky without being remotely annoying. Moffat helps, obviously. I’m glad he hasn’t forced too much shock and awe reactions for Amy, it would feel so much like we were going through the motions. I found last week’s ‘any passing remarks? I’ve heard them all.’ line pretty interesting, it’s as though Moffat was making a point of not repeating the whole schtick, not insulting his viewers’ intelligence.

    #109331
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    Last week was kind of a remake of Smith and Jones, this week we had Gridlock.

    It didn’t really work for me. Seemed underwritten with lots of stuff unanswered. There were some genuinely interesting ideas, such as Amy’s message to herself…but the details just seemed a bit sketchy (why did they start torturing the whale if it was completely unnecessary? where are the other countries if they’re not on whale-powered ships?). The resolution to the moral dilemma was just…moving the goal-posts. And the Smilers (who looked very promising) did, um, not much.

    Sophie Okonedo also annoyed the shit out of me.

    #109334
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    Lose Pete. Thanks.

    #109335
    ChrisM
    Participant

    >why did they start torturing the whale if it was completely unnecessary?

    They made an assumption. What’s that old addage about the word assume? (I think I read it is a Stephen King book once.)

    Actually Amy explained this at the end of the episode. There they are in trouble, nothing to power their ship, and along comes a huge space-faring creature. They don’t speak the same language. They probably don’t even know the whale was sentient. They don’t know that it came to help them, they just see an opportunity and use it at the poor creature’s expense.

    >where are the other countries if they’re not on whale-powered ships

    I’m assuming (this time rightly I think) they’re flying the space-ways with great big engines. There was plenty of tubing etc on the ship which indicated it was intended to be connected to such a thing, and I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that far in the future the engine systems had been developed. As to why the Britain ship didn’t… maybe they just ran out of resources at that point, or the original system was faulty. True, that part was never explained, but I don’t think it really matters for this current story. This is a generation ship and that happened centuries ago.

    >The resolution to the moral dilemma was just…moving the goal-posts.

    I quite liked that. It was all about making hard choices and although Amy’s turned out to be right… it was certainly a chance to take.

    >And the Smilers (who looked very promising) did, um, not much.

    I think they did enough. They were creepy and essentially the ship’s government enforcers.

    >Sophie Okonedo also annoyed the shit out of me.

    I found her quite sassy to start with… but she did irritate me a bit later on too. She should have left out the ‘Landon’ pantomime spiel I think.

    #109336
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    >Actually Amy explained this at the end of the episode. There they are in trouble, nothing to power their ship, and along comes a huge space-faring creature. They don’t speak the same language. They probably don’t even know the whale was sentient. They don’t know that it came to help them, they just see an opportunity and use it at the poor creature’s expense.

    Yeah, I got this from the episode. Just don’t think it holds up to much scrutiny. I’ll excuse the fact that they wouldn’t know once they got into a routine of torturing the whale over hundreds of years, but not when they first built the starship on it. They never thought to test the amount of pain they need to give the whale to ensure it keeps moving? (And they must have, otherwise they wouldn’t describe it as “torture’).

    And is this truth REALLY that bad that it would cause most people to erase the fact from their memory? Considering what humans have done to numerous other species, torturing one whale to ensure the survival of the Brits is actually pretty minor.

    One other thing, the final shot showed the whale clearly visible from under the starship. Wouldn’t this have been visible from the TARDIS where they were floating around it earlier?

    >Lose Pete. Thanks.

    Brilliant.

    #109337
    pfm
    Participant

    > One other thing, the final shot showed the whale clearly visible from under the starship. Wouldn’t this have been visible from the TARDIS where they were floating around it earlier?

    They were floating way above the ship so couldn’t see it. Though come on this is just storytelling convenience. Surely the Tardis scanner could have shown the whale from the get go, it’s just the kind of thing you need to forget about if you want to be able to enjoy an episode of television.

    #109339
    Tarka Dal
    Participant

    Moffar’s comment somewhere about the show being fairytale > Sci-Fi probably explains this away (not just for his era). If you want a cold, hard fast based drama then you’re watching the wrong show.

    #109343
    Alex
    Participant

    Yeah, I got this from the episode. Just don’t think it holds up to much scrutiny.

    And of course everything else in the show like ‘the magic box that can travel time and space and is bigger on the inside than on the outside’ is the stuff of impenetrable logic…

    Of all the things one could take issue with in the story concept, the off screen events that led to the whale being tortured seem pretty low on the list.

    #109344
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    >And of course everything else in the show like ‘the magic box that can travel time and space and is bigger on the inside than on the outside’ is the stuff of impenetrable logic…

    Ah, that old argument which apparently prevents the logic of any Doctor Who story from being scrutinized. 5/5 it is, then.

    >If you want a cold, hard fast based drama then you’re watching the wrong show.

    No, I’m tuning in to watch a show written by the guy who wrote one of the best pieces of drama I’ve seen in the last ten years. If he produces an episode that seems rather uninspired, I’m going to say so. I’m not going to unconditionally love it just because he wrote it, rather than RTD. Eleventh Hour was good, this was average at best.

    #109346
    pfm
    Participant

    > No, I’m tuning in to watch a show written by the guy who wrote one of the best pieces of drama I’ve seen in the last ten years.

    You don’t mean that ropey mess Blink, do you?

    #109347
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    Lose performingmonkey. Thanks.

    #109355
    Rad
    Participant

    Agree with Pete. I assumed when the episode ended the way it did that I hadn’t understood something but no, the episode doesn’t make that sense. Matt Smith’s great though so it’s probably a 3/5 for me. I’ll never watch it again though.

    #109358
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    It’s internally consistent. Everything that occurs in the episode makes sense. Granted, it could’ve used an extra 15 minutes or so to breathe, but it’s another one of those Doctor Who episodes where if you’re not paying attention it won’t feel complete.

    #109360
    Tarka Dal
    Participant

    > Ah, that old argument which apparently prevents the logic of any Doctor Who story from being scrutinized. 5/5 it is, then.

    Well there’s little point in trying to have any kind of discussion if that’s the maturity of the response is there?

    > No, I’m tuning in to watch a show written by the guy who wrote one of the best pieces of drama I’ve seen in the last ten years. If he produces an episode that seems rather uninspired, I’m going to say so.

    Then you should expect those who enjoyed it to call you out.

    > I’m not going to unconditionally love it just because he wrote it, rather than RTD.

    For a minute there I thought you were being serious.

    #109361
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    >Well there’s little point in trying to have any kind of discussion if that’s the maturity of the response is there?

    There’s little point in having any kind of discussion if someone says “X hasn’t made sense for the last 40 years, so why should Y in this episode?”

    >Then you should expect those who enjoyed it to call you out.

    Still waiting for someone to. You know, other than saying “You’re wrong”, “You’re watching the wrong show if you didn’t like this”, “You didn’t pay attention” and “Doctor Who isn’t supposed to make sense”.

    I’m in complete agreement that Matt Smith is fantastic, but I haven’t actually seen anyone compliment this episode beyond that.

    #109362

    I enjoyed it and so did my Dad :) That’s all I’m looking for really, something to enjoy. I don’t need to scrutinize the science or logic if it’s going to affect my enjoyment of the episode. I’m just not that sort of person. I just like the episode rather a lot.

    #109363
    Seb Patrick
    Keymaster

    It’s much easier to express criticism – particularly if it’s nit-picking – than it is to go into detail about why you particularly liked something, though.

    It’s a damning indictment of the negativity inherent in the internet that the burden of proof always lies with those who liked something, rather than those that find fault.

    And people have replied to some of your specific complaints, it’s just that you don’t agree with them that the explanations/justifications are adequate. That’s your problem, not theirs. Don’t try and claim the high ground by saying “Oh, no-one’s given a proper response to the points I raised”, because some have.

    I haven’t actually seen anyone compliment this episode beyond that.

    Do you read the internet with your eyes closed?

    #109364
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    >It’s much easier to express criticism – particularly if it’s nit-picking – than it is to go into detail about why you particularly liked something, though.

    I would disagree that it’s nitpicking to say that a central character annoyed the shit out me, the smilers (who were promoted as being integral to this episode) were underused and the finale was flawed because it made little sense. I don’t think any of them are trivial complaints.

    If I’d criticised the CGI, Smith’s bowtie or the size of the TARDIS windows, that would be nitpicking. But the scope of this episode was HUGE, and it just seemed underwritten with lots of holes.

    >Do you read the internet with your eyes closed?

    No, I just don’t spend my time scouring the web for Doctor Who reviews. This thread is as far as I’ve ventured so far with regards to The Beast Below. I take it from that that this has been greeted with the same boundless enthusiasm that prompted me to come on here and sing the praises of Blink or Midnight after their initial airings.

    #109367
    steven87gill
    Participant

    Looking forward to next weeks ep, Matt Smith’s ‘i am the Doctor, and you are the daleks!’ line sounds corny (i’m sure the audio of that line was leaked the other year and it got people worried) though i’m guessing it might be done for comedy effect, like the ‘who the man’ line in TEH. Out of context that line would’ve sounded worrying as well.

    #109368
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    I would disagree that it’s nitpicking to say that a central character annoyed the shit out me, the smilers (who were promoted as being integral to this episode) were underused…

    I don’t recall the Smilers ever being promoted as “integral”. They popped up in the 3D trailer, certainly, but I’d hardly consider that “integral”.

    …and the finale was flawed because it made little sense. I don’t think any of them are trivial complaints.

    It made tons of sense. If you don’t think it made sense then I argue, quite rightly I feel, that you weren’t paying any bloody attention.

    #109371
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    It was precisely the fact that I was paying bloody attention that it didn’t make any sense. In fact, the more you think about it, the more questions it poses which will, likely, remain unanswered…much like RTD and The End of Time.

    Stuff such as the age of Liz 10 (hundreds of years old) is dismissed very quickly but, when you consider it beyond face value, it poses a question; the public must know that she is hundreds of years old. She, however, can’t even know what year it is. Maybe I missed the bit where it was explained because I wasn’t paying attention.

    The Smilers were, indeed, in the trailer. They were also in the synopsis. But, ignoring that, they were an important part of the setup and posed as a threat…and then we found out that they were actually working to protect the secret. That’s completely fine. But there’s no resolution to this and they aren’t seen beyond the big reveal.

    #109372
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    You’ve asked two questions there. The first question could be answered quite simply with the “Forget” button. The second is inconsequential and doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things.

    Got any more questions?

    #109373
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    >You’ve asked two questions there.

    Nope.

    >The first question could be answered quite simply with the “Forget” button.

    Which is lovely. Unfortunately Liz 10 believes she’s been serving for just ten years. And a 15 year old would know that’s not true…because they’ve never forgotten.

    >The second is inconsequential and doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things.

    So inconsequential that it doesn’t exist. My criticism about the smilers wasn’t a question.

    >Got any more questions?

    Just the one but you don’t want to hear it.

    #109378
    ori-STUDFARM
    Participant

    >Got any more questions?

    Does anybody want any toast?….How about a muffin?

    #109380
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    > Which is lovely. Unfortunately Liz 10 believes she’s been serving for just ten years. And a 15 year old would know that’s not true…because they’ve never forgotten.

    You assume that when British citizens press the “forget” button that it only erases the twenty-minute film they just saw. Granted that’s a bit of a stretch. Alternatively the public know that Liz 10 had her aging pretty much brought to a halt and the only person who doesn’t know is Liz 10. Either way it never particularly bothered me.

    > So inconsequential that it doesn’t exist. My criticism about the smilers wasn’t a question.

    Actually what you’ve done there, haha, is prove my point. You said, “the more you think about it, the more questions it poses.” I answered two questions (actually one question, but that’s what not paying attention and operating on only a couple of hours’ worth of sleep will do to you). Then I asked fro more questions, and you apparently haven’t got any.

    I’ve seen other questions asked elsewhere, but all of the questions I’ve seen were answered in the show itself. This leads me to believe two things.

    1.) Doctor Who fans aren’t very observant, and
    2.) 45 minutes isn’t really enough time to do this idea justice.

    In any case, I’ll be writing a proper review of this episode later for URP!, so I’ll save further commentary on the episode for that.

    #109381
    Tarka Dal
    Participant

    > Which is lovely. Unfortunately Liz 10 believes she’s been serving for just ten years. And a 15 year old would know that’s not true…because they’ve never forgotten.

    Can you point out where this actually generates a conflict within the established universe? A moment whereby the queen screams out to her public “Ere Guv, ‘ow long ave I been on the throne?” and a child would have the opportunity to question the established facts about what occured prior to their 5th birthday?

    Exactly how many memories do you recall prior to your 5th birthday, prior to your 10th? Alternatively exactly how much opportunity would children within a ‘police state’ get to challenge such things, especially when you take into account that the entire adult population would be convinced otherwise.

    > There’s little point in having any kind of discussion if someone says “X hasn’t made sense for the last 40 years, so why should Y in this episode?”

    I made those remarks simply because it’s a conversation that gets repeated after every episode. Not usually because an episode is poorly written, but because each episode is fiction over faction and will always leak the odd plothole in order to give way to a stronger overall story.

    To say the episode “Didn’t make any sense” or to imply that Moffat is as unsatisfying as RTD when it comes to tieing up loose-ends just doesn’t appear to be an opinion that’s going to get too much support or sympathy.

    I appreciate that it’s frustrating when your enjoyment of a show is ruined by such issues and equally it’s frustrating when everyone seems blind to their importance, but you hardly help yourself by demonstrating a shitty attitude to anyone who dares disagree with you.

    #109382
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    >Actually what you’ve done there, haha, is prove my point. You said, “the more you think about it, the more questions it poses.” I answered two questions (actually one question, but that’s what not paying attention and operating on only a couple of hours’ worth of sleep will do to you). Then I asked fro more questions, and you apparently haven’t got any.

    Run that by me again…? There, that was almost a question.

    >45 minutes isn’t really enough time to do this idea justice.

    Who’s fault is that? BBC Schedulers or…(whisper) Steven Moffat?

    >Can you point out where this actually generates a conflict within the established universe? A moment whereby the queen screams out to her public “Ere Guv, ‘ow long ave I been on the throne?” and a child would have the opportunity to question the established facts about what occured prior to their 5th birthday?

    Ok, you DID ask;

    During the events of this episode, Liz 10 has been investigating for ten years (irrespective of the fact that she’s investigated and found out the truth numerous times before), and she hasn’t even found out during her current investigation how long she’s been on the throne for?

    The Queen wakes up in a chair in, for argument’s sake, 2500. As far as she knows, she’s just had her coronation.

    Unfortunately, there’s people who will have almost another 5 years knowing that she’s actually been in the throne since, at least, 2499. Then the 15 year old pops up and says he doesn’t remember a monarch before Liz 10. Does anyone?

    People in “the UK” wouldn’t forget at the same time as they’re all visiting the booths at different times (or not at all, in the case of the people below 16) so they’d always be a confusion about when the coronation actually took place. How do history books work if the monarch has no idea what year it is or the public are constantly having bits of their memories erased? How bad are Liz’s investigation skills if it’s taken her 10 years to get this far?

    >To say the episode “Didn’t make any sense” or to imply that Moffat is as unsatisfying as RTD when it comes to tieing up loose-ends just doesn’t appear to be an opinion that’s going to get too much support or sympathy.

    Neither is saying “Moffat had an off-day”, evidently. Blasphemy. Maybe I should pay more attention to the “Written by” credit, before daring to state an opinion. I ripped into RTD whenever he wrote a turkey, but I was also happy to sing his praises when he produced something wonderful (Midnight, being one shining example).

    I wasn’t actually asking for support, and I certainly wasn’t asking for sympathy. I merely gave an opinion. Ben said I was wrong. You said I was watching the wrong show. Plenty of people dismissed my plotholes and claimed I was wrong. I’m merely elaborating on that. It wouldn’t be an issue, if this episode didn’t have such huge scope. Unfortunately, it’s built on huge ideas and they invite inspection.

    To repeat; Blink’s a fucking masterpiece, The Girl in the Fireplace is brilliant. This isn’t. Not sure how this can even be 4/5 when compared to those episodes.

    >But you hardly help yourself by demonstrating a shitty attitude to anyone who dares disagree with you.

    Lose Karl. Thanks.

    Is that more polite?

    #109395
    pfm
    Participant

    > To repeat; Blink’s a fucking masterpiece, The Girl in the Fireplace is brilliant. This isn’t. Not sure how this can even be 4/5 when compared to those episodes.

    Because you’re not really supposed to be comparing TBB to Blink and TGITFP, that’s why. TBB is the first proper adventure for the new Doctor and companion, Amy’s first journey in the Tardis and the chance for her to prove herself, and we’re still getting to grips with Matt’s Doctor (with ease, it must be said). You just can’t have episodes with as much depth as TGITFP and Blink when you’re so soon into a new setup like this.

    Come back when it’s the Angels 2-parter.

    Btw is this the most disturbing Who-related clip on youtube…?

    ‘My name is Rolex. I will take you to meet the Lord of the Eternal Time Watch – Sekonda…’ Rotf,,,

    #109396
    mark100000
    Participant

    If thats the sort of descision making moffat is giving amy I would like to see what happens when she makes the wrong descision!

    ON THE WHOLE (not breaking it down into tiny pieces!) i though it was a nice episode, it was a good continuation on the ‘letting us meet the new characters’

    #109397
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    >Because you’re not really supposed to be comparing TBB to Blink and TGITFP, that’s why.

    Just wanted to remind you that in the past I’ve loved Moffat’s writing, and I wasn’t underwhelmed by this just because it was him writing it. I’m not sure why you can’t compare ANY two episodes, but if it helps, I’ll say that Gridlock was much better.

    #109398
    pfm
    Participant

    > I’ll say that Gridlock was much better.

    And you’d be wrong.

    #109399
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    Jolly good. I’m looking forward to being told my opinions are somehow wrong for the next 11 weeks.

    #109400
    pfm
    Participant

    > I’m looking forward to being told my opinions are somehow wrong for the next 11 weeks.

    Well you’ll be wrong to do so.

    #109405
    Jonathan Capps
    Keymaster

    What a bunch of pricks.

    #109407
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    Ah’ve jost cacked me pants.

    #109408
    TheLeen
    Participant

    I’m away, I’ll watch it Monday after work. Now no one say anything on twitter. No? Ah, ok.

    #109410
    hummingbird
    Participant

    WWII, Daleks and Gatiss, tonight – how can it fail?
    That was rhetorical, btw.

    Plus the remake of The Prisoner. It’s going to be an interesting night.

    #109411
    ori-STUDFARM
    Participant

    Dint like it!

    #109412
    Carlito
    Participant

    > But there’s someone else (non-Who) that he strongly reminds me of.
    It’ll come to me eventually.

    For some reason he’s started to remind me of Chris Morris.

    #109413
    ChrisM
    Participant

    I largely liked it but there were a couple of rather duff points. I went through a list/review thing describing my thoughts… then noticed this is a spoiler free thread. Silly me. Cool I just noticed before posting.

    #109414
    Carlito
    Participant

    Surely it’s not a spoiler once its aired?

    #109415
    pfm
    Participant

    > Dint like it!

    Same. What a bag of wank! I can live with the new Dalek design, though they were wasted with nothing to do (we can only hope we get Moffat-penned Daleks at some point). Cringeworthy performance of Churchill by Ian McNeice, and for what reason did he even need to be in the episode?? Compared with Dickens’s appearance (also penned by Gatiss) it was pointless. The worst ‘historical celebrity’ yet.

    Amy not knowing the Daleks is great but Gatiss made zero use of that fact in the episode. Her lack of knowledge of them should have ended up putting herself and/or the Doctor in danger somehow. Also, considering she’d never seen them before she acted pretty blaze around them. Some strange decisions made here…*sigh*

    And a dodgy-as-anything sound mix to boot. I thought they might have learned they need to do a stereo mix for broadcast, considering 99% of viewers will never see it with the 5.1 one, but noooo. It was like they didn’t want us to hear the dialogue… The thing is it wasn’t too bad on TEH and TBB. Victory was definitely mixed worse. Maybe when it’s a better episode you just don’t care about stuff like that…

    I wanted to be on the edge of my seat with this one, which is probably why I’m pissed off. Where was that moment that Moffat said we would all want to keep rewinding and playing back? Does he mean the new Daleks being revealed?? If so he should have kept them out of the bloody Radio Times!

    #109416
    ChrisM
    Participant

    >And a dodgy-as-anything sound mix to boot.

    Wasn’t it just? I’ve seen complaints about this with previous episodes but didn’t notice it. This week it was very poor though.

    >Surely it’s not a spoiler once its aired?

    Um..

    (One re-read of first post later)you’re right. (I wouldn’t mind but I’ve posted spoilers here myself. I thought there was specific threads for each episode, but realise now that’s another site I visit. )

    Okay go on then, MAJOR SPOILERS AHOOOOOY!

    Sorry, had a funny turn there.

    Daleks and WW II, = Good.

    Churchill = Good.

    Spitfires in Place = Good. (Although that was a quick upgrade. Maybe those systems had already been installed though. I think it was mentioned but I missed it.)

    Doctor baiting dalek to prove to others they’re evil= Bit stupid. I know he wants to prove their true identity to the others, but like that? It’s just as well for them they didn’t slaughter everyone in the room in a few seconds flat rather than just a couple of people.

    However the plot twist using Doctor for their super-race ends was good. Well, no it was evil.. but I’m sure you know what I mean.

    I’ll stop the this = this stuff now.

    As for the new colourful Daleks I wasn’t sure from the pictures, but on-screen they looked really good. Not the brightest mentally though when they didn’t attempt to zap the Doctor the moment his jammie ruse was exposed, but they’ve a history of that.

    The ‘hand-held explosive device’ ploy was amusing but the ‘unpure’ daleks were stupid not to scan it earlier. Then again they’ve a tendency to judge people by their own terms so… I’ll just about buy it.

    I liked the android scientist character. Kind of convenient he was programmed with so much dalek tech knowledge  though rather than just the fake memories of creating daleks themselves… but I’ll accept it as the daleks probably felt a bit more honey in the pot helps their ends (oo-er) and they are arrogant and prone to underestimation.

    The last twist with the bomb was good, but the solution was…. rather bad. Next time my computer stops working properly I’ll stick a USB lead up my bottom and think sad and saucy thoughts see if the computer stops mucking about. Yeah, I know I’m exaggerating, but that wasn’t good.

    Overall it was a decent fun episode though.

    #109417
    pfm
    Participant

    > I think it was mentioned but I missed it.

    If this had been a well-scripted, well-directed episode there wouldn’t be any sort of confusion. Because it wasn’t made clear to us, when they appear in space it’s more of a ‘what?? bleurghpfft*sigh*’ moment rather than ‘YES! COME ON!!’

    OK there was one great moment and that was the Dalek saying ‘you do not require tea!’ when the Doctor was bashing it!

    I just wish those Daleks really didn’t know who or what they were. It would have made it far more interesting and that was something I was looking forward to. It should have been played as the Doctor feeling broken because even his greatest enemies are lost to him. What is he without the Daleks? It’s similar to the situation between him and the Master.

    #109420
    Tarka Dal
    Participant

    > It should have been played as the Doctor feeling broken because even his greatest enemies are lost to him.

    Might be an interesting read, but well it’s not much fun for the kids is it?

    One of the traits of the Moffat-Era Show already seems to be keeping the spirit of childhood right at the centre of things. We had kids feature heavily in the the first two episodes, we know one shows up during the Weeping Angels story. Tonight seemed to be an extension of that.

    Gattiss in all fairness to him did state in Confidential that he set out to capture the feel of bank holiday war movies rather than anything overly complex.
    It struck me as being a pretty dumb episode, one of style and name dropping over any particular substance, but again it’s all part of the show isn’t it? The dark, more complicated episodes we treasure of as gems because they’re for us (the grown-ups) and because we’ve gone through all the daft stuff to get to them. Then again I quite liked Evolution.

    #109422
    hummingbird
    Participant

    Very disappointed.
    I liked the new Daleks, though.

    #109423
    ChrisM
    Participant

    I just noticed:
    ‘Spitfires in Place’
    should be
    ‘Spitfires in space.’

    Obviously. I’m not sure why I capitalised ‘Place’ either, like it’s a title…

    I’ve accidentally substituted the wrong word for another that sounds the same before (there, their, they’re for example) but I’m not sure I’ve substituted another rhyming word.

    #109426
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    Liked it. Didn’t have the soundmix problems, but then I’m in America and had to watch the episode by (YARR HARR FIDDLE DEE DEE – Ed.), so I don’t know. I’ll be watching the episode later in glorious pie-definition, so we’ll see if the sound problems occur in that version of the episode.

    Despite some duffness – the Bracewell-bot didn’t quite work for me, and the resurrection of the Daleks (arf!) felt very contrived – I would still say that this is probably the second-best Dalek story the show has done since its revival, sitting right behind “Dalek”.

    #109429
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    Well, at the risk of being flamed for saying that was a ropey episode; that was a ropey episode.

    First 10 minutes were great with a nice air of mystery about the Daleks’ ulterior motives. Doctor losing his temper was similarly impressive.

    And then it all went wrong. The jammy dodger stuff was fine, but the reason behind the deception was messy…and the outcome was a bunch of distinctly camp looking Daleks who failed to threaten any future menace by not doing a bloody thing. They didn’t kill anyone (barring a couple of pilots) and their grand scheme – the bomb (how cunning!) failed to detonate. I’m not sure why the Doctor was so downbeat that these particular Daleks scarpered.

    And the last ten minutes hinted at a twist that never came. With bucket loads of running time before the end credits, I assumed that something else was going to happen. But it didn’t. We got a bunch of goodbyes and another crack in space/time (and this, sadly, is getting so repetitive it’s becoming redundant…Bad Wolf, it aint).

    I don’t really get why this story was set in WW2. Moffat gave Gatiss the premise “Daleks and Churchill”, and he seemingly got bored with that after 15 minutes. A missed opportunity.

    On the plus side, Amy was great and the quandry other why she doesn’t remember the Dalkes is nicely intriguing. And it was a damned sight better than Evolution.

    #109432
    Nick R
    Participant

    > We got a bunch of goodbyes and another crack in space/time (and this, sadly, is getting so repetitive it’s becoming redundant…Bad Wolf, it aint).

    The crack patterns are far more blatant than Bad Wolf’s early appearances, but there seems to be another, more subtle mystery building up around the date discrepancies. It’s not just the hospital name badge and Amy’s memories of the Daleks – if I can quote a couple of other people’s posts from over on the xkcd forums:

    The Doctor has been landing in the wrong time on every Tardis trip so far. Twice with Amy (12 and 2 year errors), and 1 month late for Churchill. And now I decided to check The Beast Below, and the years don’t add up there either. At the beginning the Doctor says the Earth was fried in the 29th century (800 years in the future), and later estimates that Liz 10 is 300 years old. So he thinks he’s 1100 years in the future, but the computer in the voting booth says Amy is 1306 years old. 200-year error.

    You know, it seems like the Tardis is being drawn to the cracks in time rather than the other way around? I mean, that’s why it keeps missing I think. Like trying to throw darts with a big magnet a few inches to the side

    I like that theory…

    #109433
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    I’m not convinced by the “late landings” as a running theme..

    His “12 year late” thing in The Eleventh Hour just seems like a nice plot point to introduce Matt Smith, the time-travel element and an antagonism between Amy and the man that let her down. The “2 years late” thing could simply be due to pushing Amy’s story forward and giving her something to run away from (her wedding).

    I’m not denying that there’s more to Amy that we don’t know though, as there’s clearly something weird about her.

    As for Victory, the reason he’s a month late is to give him a reason for being there. Churchill said that he’d phoned the Doctor when the Daleks first arrived as he was concerned and wanted his assistance. However, a month has now passed and he has since warmed to them (and no longer feels the Doctor NEEDS to be there); creating tension when the Doctor reveals that they are dangerous.

    #109435
    ChrisM
    Participant

    >I’m not convinced by the “late landings” as a running theme..

    Me neither. There could be something in it, but this series is certainly not the first time he has been late.

    > I’m not sure why the Doctor was so downbeat that these particular Daleks scarpered.

    Because they’ll be out there causing mischief and he knows at some point he’ll have to confront them again, and by now, he is so very tired of them I’d imagine.

    #109438
    ChrisM
    Participant
    #109442
    Rad
    Participant

    It was pretty good though a number of poor moments.

    The first ten minutes with the mystery of what was happening with these Daleks was more interesting than the rest of the episode. After that we enter historical romp mode and after the admittedly fun battle with the spitfires in space, it seemed that this would have been a better episode if it was constrained by a smaller budget. Given the miracles they work with money on the show, this isn’t really a fair point but there may have been a better episode in a different version of the story.

    Also, even though it totally contradicts my previous point about budget, I’m disappointed we didn’t have a WW2 Dalek version of Dr Manhattan vs The Viet Cong.

    Getting sick of The Doctor’s self-mythologising – “You Know What Davros Called Me – Iron Balls the Badaass” etc etc.

    The final scene with the Android was unsatisfying. He’s an immortal with a bunch of fake memories (Am I right? I may have not heard some dialogue). Quite what he’s going to do in 1940 I don’t know. May as well have gone with the Doctor. There was a lot more that could have been done with the character rather than run after a non-existent woman (Am I right? Someone tell me).

    Despite these concerns, it was enjoyable enough to merit four stars for me.

    #109443
    Muzzy
    Participant

    I’m fairly certain the Doctor said at some point that Bracewell had been given someone else’s memories. So it’s possible the things he remembered did indeed exist.

    #109450
    TheLeen
    Participant
    #109452
    pfm
    Participant

    Watched it a second time (the HD version with vlc player, and the sound mix was perfect) and it’s even more apparent what a weak episode it is.

    Amy saving the day again would have been great if she had had more than two meaningful lines before that moment. When she says ‘ever fancied someone you know you shouldn’t?’ it’s like she’s about to declare her love for Bracewell! Relating this statement to anything real on Amy’s part would have been a good idea here, even if it meant suggesting she fancies the Doctor. She calls him ‘Paisley boy’ a couple of times and then she’s supposed to be able to have this meaningful moment with him? Nope, it’s hard to buy, harder to buy than spitfires in space. Really poor scripting and directing.

    #109453
    Tarka Dal
    Participant

    > it’s like she’s about to declare her love for Bracewell!

    I thought that. I also thought it was a little dissappointing that after The Doctor saving the day with such brains and swagger in the first episode that the resolutions have been handed to Amy in the first two adventures. Not that there’s any reason to keep count, but so far I’m waiting for more from The Doctor himself.

    Aside from whether it was actually any good, could it be that the episode suffered a bit from just not being Moffat penned? Sure we had Moffat episodes in the RTD era, but for Gattiss the reference points would be David Tennant and the RTD era. By all means Moffat could have shared scripts and provided information on Smith’s Who, but it’s not the same as seeing the end product. It’s a little early perhaps to start discussing Smith’s own personal tropes, but both The Doctor and Companion felt a bit more generic in VotD than they had previously.

    #109455
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    I think Amy is causing the cracks. I don’t think the TARDIS is finding the cracks. i think the cracks are finding her. Of note is that we’ve only seen cracks in the last two episodes after they’ve left, as though she’s leaving them in her wake.

    #109457
    ChrisM
    Participant

    I thought that. I also thought it was a little dissappointing that after The Doctor saving the day with such brains and swagger in the first episode that the resolutions have been handed to Amy in the first two adventures

    The Doctor saved the day in the first episode, and Amy did in the second, true. In the third, I saw it as more of a team effort though. The Doctor came up with the idea of how to stop the bomb and Amy took it that step further, rather than opting for a different option altogether like she did the previous episode. I quite like that… although I thought that the idea that persuading a robot he is human would cause the bomb to deactivate was so much bum-fluff.

    It’s also curious that people complain about the companion saving the day rather than the Doctor. As if it’s a new thing. I’ve seen Old who episodes (not many granted) where the companions would often save the day.

    I think Amy is causing the cracks. I don’t think the TARDIS is finding the cracks. i think the cracks are finding her.

    Good thought!

    #109458
    Nick R
    Participant

    14-minute Steven Moffat video interview:

    http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/steven-moffat-interview-doctor-who.php

    Very interesting – but I was a bit surprised by how many hints he gave about certain things (including something about the 2-parter coming up), so don’t watch it if you don’t want any hints at all about what’s in store.

    The interviewer does mention the 1990 date on Rory’s hospital badge, and Moffat gives a surprisingly definite answer about that… BUT DO WE BELIEVE HIM…?

    When asked about the scale of the series finales (“season finales – now more intimate than ever!”), he gives some vague-ish hints about how grand the scale might be for both this series and what he’s sort-of got in mind for series 6 – another thing I was surprised he said anything about at all! But this line will be very promising to those who thought that RTD’s finales were undermined by their universe-in-peril ambition:

    “It’s dramatic if you’re threatening the universe – it’s equally dramatic if you threaten one person. It has to be huge for the characters.”

    He’s also asked about the possibility of companions from other time periods, and mentions that RTD was very close to introducing a Victorian companion. I’m not sure if that’s ever been revealed before (haven’t read The Writer’s Tale).

    #109459
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    Interview with Alex Kingston

    http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctor-who/tubetalk/a215175/alex-kingston-talks-doctor-who-return.html

    Rather pleased that TTOA is not the first time that River meets The Doctor as it seems that they’re taking their time with this arc and revealing the extent of the relationship gradually.

    #109460
    Ridley
    Participant
    #109461
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    RTD obviously not a fan of cold turkey.

    #109495
    Alex
    Participant

    The first episode of the downloadable games is to be called ‘City of The Daleks’. More interesting is this:

    The TARDIS materializes in 1963 – and London is in ruins. The Daleks have seized control of time and the only chance of saving Earth lies in a desperate quest to Skaro, the Daleks’ home planet – before time catches up with Amy, the last survivor of the human race!

    I imagine a large ammount of continuity debates have just opened on Galifrey Base…

    #109503
    Muzzy
    Participant

    But…but…Skaro blew up!!! :P

    #109507
    ChrisM
    Participant

    >But…but…Skaro blew up!!

    If only they had a time travelling device hanging around somewhere….

    Oh.

    ;)

    #109508
    pfm
    Participant

    > I’m not sure if that’s ever been revealed before

    Yeah, the maid role that Martha ‘played’ in Human Nature/Family of Blood (set in 1912? thereabouts) was at one stage what her original character was going to be. I’m glad RTD didn’t go that way in the end, even though Martha was kind of wasted and unfairly held up as not being Rose in her modern incarnation.

    Despite Moffat’s comments I think Amy will be harder for audiences to relate to, partly because she’s a bit wacky and her story is fairly mysterious, and also because she seems to be a lot more on the ball than past companions, already saving the day twice in her first three episodes. The Doctor is the more familiar character where Amy is a bit of an enigma.

    While he dismissed the ID card again he didn’t confirm Amy’s timeline. I’m not sure if he has in a past interview but he didn’t answer it here so it could still be an important point.

    #109517
    Nick R
    Participant

    Steven Moffat BBC blog post talking about the next two episodes, with a short clip that’s just as good as the other one that’s been released so far. Spoilers! ;)

    Eurogamer and Guardian previews of the adventure games. The Doctor and Amy talking about the Beatles? A trip to Skaro? I’m in! Instant-death stealth sections where you use a point-and-click interface to negotiate the Doctor around Daleks with Commandoes-style vision cones? Uh-oh…

    #109525
    pfm
    Participant

    Anything’s got to be better than the Daleks ep.

Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 256 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.