Doctor Who — Page 12

Babies are not cool... unless you're Stormageddon. :-P

I dunno...is wearing a baby sending out the wrong message?

But you can send out a message via the Dark Lord of all.

Wow. The finale was not as insanely complicated as it seemed. I did enjoy it. It was a good old-fashioned Doctor Who story, and, on the whole, it made sense. Honestly the one think that irked me just a bit was the end. I felt it a tad bit of a cop-out though not nearly as bad as a less skilled writer could have made it. Overall it was pretty satisfying.

One (maybe) plot-hole though, how could the Doctor be regenerating...if...? You'll get this if you watch the episode. Anyway, I found the oldest question to be quite amusing and as described, very obvious, in retrospect. It's even in this post... :-)

The finale of Doctor Who didn't quite win the prize for 'worst thing I've ever seen', but it sure as hell made the list of contenders.

Really?  The time-constant of the universe can be fooled just by shrinking yourself and dressing up in a mechanical suit?  How the crap does that make any sense at all?  Never mind the fact that there was actually a duplicate of the Doctor earlier in the year who they could have had take his place!  But silly me, what do I know, why bother to have things fit together logically when you can just string along a bunch of incoherent nonsense to make people think you're a clever writer!

And seriously, River Song.  You suck.  You're a useless piece of trash so convinced of your own importance you can't see that there's not a single redeeming quality anywhere in your entire character.  Willing to destroy the entire universe just because you wuv the Doctor so so much?  Fuck you, you stupid pathetic piece of shit!  That 'wedding' scene made me feel ill just watching it, and if I could create cracks in the universe myself I'd make sure she was the first thing that went in, so she'd never exist.

Hell, I'm actually glad they're taking time off from the show, because maybe this way when it comes back they'll be able to come up with something that doesn't make me want to kick them in the nuts.  It's even more of a shame since, unlike last year, the middle episodes of this series were actually pretty good.

Good grief, what a bunch of bollocks.

I would recommend starting in the actual TV series as that's really the main part of Doctor Who. For a newbie, Series 5 would be a good place to start. It'll introduce you to the current Doctor and then you can work backwards or forwards from there.

I was introduced to the show via a second season 10th Doctor (David Tennant) episode, The Girl in the Fire Place. I thought it was kind of cool. That was probably when it first aired back in 2006. Never watched Doctor Who again until earlier this year when a friend of mine kept pushing me to do so, I started in season one of the 2005 series and watched my way all the way through until the end of season 5 over the course of several months.

Season one was really hard to like, it was kind of fun at times, but more often than not it was so dumb and cheesy I felt embarrassed for myself wasting time on it. Sometimes it was kind of cool and had some neat ideas, but there is a bunch of childish camp that makes it hard to forget you're watching a show for children.

I am glad I watched my way through the whole series and experienced it in order. Even at its worst, when a good odd episode sneaks its way in, it tends to be really good.

Just a month or so ago I introduced one of my friends to the series via the first 11th Doctor episode, and we just watched the finale together the night it was aired. It is now one of his favorite shows. As dumb as the 11th Doctor stuff gets sometime, it is nothing compared to some of the camp of the previous seasons. If you are determined to see what all the fuss is about, but have a low tolerance for annoyingly childish things, and aren't sure if it is going to be something you are interested in or not, start with season five. If you are bored and have nothing better to do and feel like you'll probably watch every episode eventually, I'd encourage you to start in season one (2005).

I agree with CP3S; the Revived Series sometimes does have its campy moments, which the old series ironically had less of.

In any case, if you want to are interested in Classic Who (1960s-1980s), start with the first episode of the series then jump around however you want. If you are interested in Modern Who (21st Century), then I would recommend starting with the Fifth Series, as said before.

Funny, you should mention that Puggo. Initially I personally wanted to start with Tom Baker, but a friend convinced me to start with the American movie and even lent me his Region 2 copy (wasn't available here at the time)... In any case, I don't recommend that route.

hairy_hen said:

...good grief, what a bunch of bollocks.

It was rather underwhelming on first viewing but it did improve on second viewing.

I think the fixed point was history recording the Doctor's death.

Imagine if Princess Diana hadn't died but the had successfully faked her death?

Imagine if the JFK that drove through Dallas was a wax work dummy filled with red paint.

Everything plays out the same.

The shock, the tears, the conspiracy theories, only the eye of the storm hadn't really died at that point.

It would still make an impact and punch a hole in the history books, it would still have a ripple effect on real events.

The sort of critique you are applying here is nothing new.

I was watching The Invisible Enemy the other night and remembered writing a letter to the BBC about it (when I was seven) saying that the 'clone Doctor' and 'clone Leela' weren't true clones and that injecting them into his brain was silly.

The other night I came up with the ideal story fix for that tale.

Telepathically patterned avatars 'injected' into the Doctor's mind (not brain).

That way the stupid giant prawn could have been a similarly constructed avatar of the Doctor's psychological impression of the virus pulled into the real world (his way of turning the virus into something laughable and easy to defeat).

Basically the same story but told in a way that could have been done well on a 1977 budget and wasn't a cheap rip-off of Fantastic Voyage.

I'm now working on a way of sending that idea backwards in time.

The episode in question was so rich in fun ideas but it was let down by the budget cut meaning the bizarre 'everything happening at once' world had to be squeezed into a few moments of screen time.

If it was a two parter with a bit more money, little moments like traveling through the Egyptian desert on the Orient Express could have really shined.

As it was the blinds were down and there wasn't enough time to even imagine what the world outside contained (Sutekh and Mark Anthony rubbing shoulders with Moses and the Suez Crises?). 

True... damn you, budget cuts!

I did like it, though; really. Still much better than the entirety of the RTD-era finales, but not as good, to me, as "The Big Bang".

Can't wait for December. :-)

I think it is the Jar Jar on crack thing. I liked Tennant because, while he was a bit quirky and fun on the surface, his Doctor was portrayed as extremely intelligent and quite somber at times. Matt Smith plays the role as a wild eyed kid giddily going off on all these adventures without putting much thought into it until his companions get f-ed over time and time again, at which point he feels bad, gets serious and rescues them, then goes back to the goofy excited kid dragging them into yet more danger.

While Tennant's Doctor was quirky and a bit odd, Matt Smith's is over the top goofy at times.

But I am an Americano, so I don't count. Going back and watching some Tennant episodes with my friends, I had forgotten just how much I liked him as the Doctor.

I've loved every single actor who played the Doctor (especially poor Colin who really got a chance to shine with the audio adventures).

The strengths/weaknesses of the show rest on two vectors, the production team and the internal politics of the BBC.

Michael Grade tried his upmost to kill the show because he was in a relationship with Colin's estranged wife.

John Nathan Turner (well meaning chap in many ways) thought the only way to fight the growing gap between the production values of a cheap as chips BBC show with the sort of special effects that American imports like Glen Larson's shows was to play up the Pantomime potential of wobbly sets and turn it into a spoof of it's former self instead of going in the opposite direction and not present story elements it couldn't afford.

The BBC foolishly assumed it couldn't do story lead visual effects for Doctor Who when not long after dropping the show perfectly acceptable effects were turning up on Red Dwarf.

It pitched it's tent on the American co-funding idea and a generation of families went without a Doctor on the box and the BBC lost out on VHS and later DVD sales of the stories that never were.

It's hard for some American viewers to understand that Doctor Who isn't just a television show, it's not even a cult television show like Star Trek, it's a national institution along the lines of having a monarchy or a nation specific holiday.

Discussing, even moaning about it is as British as commenting on the weather.

Dave himself isn't the thing some fans didn't like about the show (far from it he trumps Tom Baker on many best Doctor polls) it was more that RTD took total ownership of the institution and sucked most of the magic out of it for a while (in the same way that George has for some done with his own creation only Doctor Who wasn't Russell's creation in the first place).

He basically did what JNT did but during a BBC boom period and therefore with more money to spend and their full support most of the time.

If Dave had stayed on for the change over to Steven Moffatt I'm sure the link between him and the sense of relief felt with the change of lead writer wouldn't have been so intertwined.

Having a new Doctor and a new show runner and a new look refreshed the show in 2010 but then there was a recision and the BBC under attack from the Government and their friends in the Murdoch clan (don't be fooled by the hacking story it was just a cover for Rupert and Sons not to pay for something they eventually hope to obtain once the financial crisis miraculously repairs itself).

The media started to pick up stories of fans not being happy and ran those when there are always unhappy fans posting on the web (it's that sort of show).

The viewing figures (adjusted for new technology) are if anything higher than they have ever been before.

It's just a oncoming storm in a tea cup.

I'd describe it this way.

Eccleston and Tennant give star performances.

They are essentially themselves performing the role as themselves (even if you factor in David's slightly dodgy accent).

Eccleston silently fuming as the Doctor is pretty much like Eccelston silently fuming in any other role you may have had the pleasure of seeing him in.

Tennant's Dane is Tennant's Doctor with a more interesting script.

There is nothing wrong about this, some of the best loved Doctor's were essentially the actors just performing the scripts as themselves.

Hartnell's Doctor was a slightly amped up version of the man himself by all accounts, where as Tom's Doctor was Tom slightly toned down, if you can imagine that.

What you get, which is actually rather remarkable and was totally unexpected by myself when I first saw it, from Matt is a character performance.

It's like all ten previous incarnations of the Doctor (plus a bit of Matt Smith) are all under his skin and fighting for voice at the same time (with second Doctor getting the upper hand).

If you see Matt play someone else it's not the same.

greenpenguino said:

doubleofive said:

Let me get this straight:

Eccleston was pretty excitable. It's actually one of the things I liked about him.

Then Tennant comes along, and he's just as excitable, but less little kid-ish about him

And Smith is even more kid-ish than 9 or 10? I've managed to avoid any previews of 11, hardly the impression I got from the plot I've gleaned (its hard to be 4 years behind on a show).

Eccleston was more thuggish than excitable. But he would get excitable at times.

Tennant was a lot more excitable and running around-y than eccles.

Smith is like tennant X 2 on acid turned up to eleven. I do like his doctor sometimes though.

I agree with this very much.

I like the excitability of both Tennant and Eccleston. Since those are the only Doctors I have seen, I see the Doctor as sort of an excitable alien genius. So I expect excitability. Matt Smith has the excitability down, but sometimes it is annoyingly over the top (or Jar Jar esque), and I feel the genius part isn't shown much. I liked how Tennant and Eccleston felt like wise old men underneath the goofy excitability and carefree attitude. I feel that part is very lacking in Smith's Doctor, sure, it shines through sometimes, but if Smith were my first Doctor I am sure I'd have a very different view of the character. 

I think River goes a long ways in hurting Smith's Doctor as well. Besides being an annoying character a lot of the time, she is constantly showing him up and proving to be just as smart or smarter than him.

All that being said, I think the overall quality of the show is strides better than the RTD era. All my favorite RTD era episodes without exception bear the name "Steven Moffat" in the credits. Even the absolute worst episodes of seasons five and six make the mediocre episodes of the RTD years look awful, and make the awful ones feel unwatchable. And Amy and Rory are really hard to beat as companions.