brucewaynegretzky
Member
PhoncipleBone said:
Can we all at least agree that the Master dancing around to the music was delightfully whimsical moment?
Doctor Who Series 2011 |OT| Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey Stuff
- Thread starter Mr. Sam
- Start date
- Status
Can we all at least agree that the Master dancing around to the music was delightfully whimsical moment?
Spotless Mind
Member
LOL I never EVER thought i'd be reading a serious defense of the season 3 finale. I'm so confused.Tim the Wiz said:
Incendiary
Banned
Oh my fuck, that was an amazing 45 minutes of television.
I may be in the minority, but I approve of everything Moffat has done. He makes you think and he creates intertwined story arcs that obviously show he's planned and thought everything out ahead of time. The Impossible Astronaut hurt my head, but Day of the Moon cured the headache. I'll rewatch both together and probably understand everything even better than I do now.
And to those criticizing that Moffat isn't dark enough, or he isn't bringing anything to the table, by himself he's introduced the 2 best and most terrifying new Who enemies in his run: the Angels and the Silents. Hell, I'd say even the Vashta Nerada are the third best of New Who enemies. As opposed to Davies, who basically relied on Daleks to inspire any sort of terror (and usually failed at it, aside from Dalek when he hadn't run it all the way into the ground yet).
Long live Moffat.
I may be in the minority, but I approve of everything Moffat has done. He makes you think and he creates intertwined story arcs that obviously show he's planned and thought everything out ahead of time. The Impossible Astronaut hurt my head, but Day of the Moon cured the headache. I'll rewatch both together and probably understand everything even better than I do now.
And to those criticizing that Moffat isn't dark enough, or he isn't bringing anything to the table, by himself he's introduced the 2 best and most terrifying new Who enemies in his run: the Angels and the Silents. Hell, I'd say even the Vashta Nerada are the third best of New Who enemies. As opposed to Davies, who basically relied on Daleks to inspire any sort of terror (and usually failed at it, aside from Dalek when he hadn't run it all the way into the ground yet).
Long live Moffat.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
brucewaynegretzky said:
I will agree on that. I LOVED the entire build up of the end of series 3. Utopia and Sound of Drums were fantastic. Last of the Time Lords was fantastic up until the moment everyone thought of the Doctor. It was horrid at that point, but just went straight to the shitter with "I forgive you." Ugh.
I think that is why the ending to 3 hurts me so badly. I loved everything leading to it, just to be let down so epically in the end of it all. At least the end to 4 was the kitchen sink approach. It wasn't great, but it was consistently cheesy and over the top.
Incendiary said:
Seconded. Moffat's strength is in the dark, horror edges of the show.
Incendiary
Banned
PhoncipleBone said:
This was the worst moment of series 3 for me. John Simm as the Master was great. But the solution of de-aging The Doctor and having a sappy hug "I forgive you" moment just destroyed that finale. If only they could have gotten to the showdown between the two of them some other way.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Incendiary said:
It was just so anti-climactic. They build up The Master as this unstoppable psychopath, just to have a simple forgiveness from The Doctor undo it. And then people can start fighting back? Ugh. I may be forgetting some fine details there, as I have wanted to have those parts of my brain removed.
KuwabaraTheMan said:
You (and, for that matter, RTD even) have me to here.
KuwabaraTheMan said:
Aaaand then this happens. It's great that he introduces a device/concept that has a clever reversal as a possible use in the conclusion. Sure.
But that clever reversal amounts to "MAKE THE DOCTOR GOD." You couldn't get more Deus Ex Machinas if you had Zeus come down on a toclafane encrusted chariot to smite the Master. This is some bizarro world you make your argument from where that ending was 'subtle' and not 'smacking you over the head.'
The Doctor, over the course of that episode, was transformed from The Doctor, to Gollum, and then into God. With no rational or speculative basis for him to make that leap (especially the last one).
Was there something in the first act I missed that said the Archangel Network could turn someone into God? I must have missed that bit.
Of all the plot contrivances RTD ever came up with, this is the one you choose to make your stand on?
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
Incendiary said:
I"ll give you the Vashta Nerada, but not the others. The Weeping Angles were about as scary as a butterfly (ooh some statues that send you back in time to live the rest of your life in bliss in the best possible scenario and then let you die happily of old age...terrifying). The Silence are just...I dunno. I appreciate what he did with them, but I don't think they're especially scary.
And I think RTD created one of the scariest monsters of all in the unseen monster in Midnight. That episode was just bone chilling.
PhoncipleBone said:
Horror, yes. Dark, no. Moffat doesn't really do anything dark. RTD did a lot of dark stuff, but not Moffat. The closest he's really come to something dark was in The Beast Below.
Moffat's strength is in building up spooky atmospheres, but he doesn't really tell very dark stories. RTD did, but he did them while covering them up with lots of colorful moments.
Moffat's horror is scary, but never dark. Doctor Who examples of 'dark horror' would be things like Horror of Fang Rock or Midnight, which center themselves around psychological horror.
maharg said:
The Doctor had an entire year in which to integrate himself into the Archangel Network and tap into every element of this (he even tells the Master this much after the reversal happens). Why is it so hard to believe that when his mind is linked by a powerful psychic network to billions of people all concentrating on the exact same thought at the same time, he is able to become more powerful? Where's the disconnect there? He was linked to an entire species at once via an extremely powerful psychic system.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
KuwabaraTheMan said:
That is not what makes the Weeping Angels scary. It isn't what they do to you, it is how they do it. The speed aspect of it. The fact that you have to ALWAYS be looking at them, or they will get you, even if you blink, is why they are scary. It is the mainly expressionless faces (until the fangs come out, but they are scarier when they are just emotionless faces) that add to the creepiness. Then Moffat had to throw one more wrench into it and make any image of them become and Angel as well. So not only can you not turn away from them or you die, but you can't even take a picture of them without it coming to life.
Killing you or displacing you in time is not what was scary. The fact that you couldn't look away from them is what made them scary. Much like the Silence, what makes them scary is that they are always there when you aren't looking. You are scared when you look at them, but once you look away you are back to blissful ignorance land while this tall alien is right behind you.
Wes said:
And I was digging the pinned back hair as well. Amy is definitely hotter this season. If that was possible.
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
PhoncipleBone said:
Yeah, and then they get to you and...basically grant you happiness. What's scary about that?
I also found the whole element of always having to be looking at them not particularly engaging. It's hard to be scared when both people who get caught by them go out of their way to tell that chick how they wound up having the most wonderful life imaginable.
KuwabaraTheMan said:
Yes, well. When I tap into the internet my bank account becomes more powerful and floods with money.
*checks bank account*
Nope, didn't work. It's a non-sequitur. Why *should* a psychic network grant him amazing physical powers he's never shown any sign of having before? The onus isn't on me to explain why it shouldn't, I'm not the one who wrote the contrived piece of crap ending. Where's the connect here?
I'm watching it again right now and it makes as much non-sense as it did the first time I ever watched it.
I think I don't really understand what you actually think 'dark' is. Because I definitely think Moffat is dark and RTD is silly and bombastic. Even the supposedly dark 9th doctor was, imo, more often funny and silly.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
maharg said:
Exactly. And how were The Empty Child and The Doctor Dances NOT dark? Moffat is definitely darker than RTD. The only thing RTD ever did that was darker than dark was Children of Earth. That was seriously fucked up. Sure, it had the deus ex machina that is the staple of RTD, but it actually made sense in the grand scheme of things, unlike Last of the Time Lords.
maharg said:
god this shit was easily the worst thing about new who. i still get bitter thinking about it
re: dark. RTD was definitely silly as shit, but I do think Christopher Eccleston to this day managed to portray the few moments of anger and power greater than any other Doctor to date. Other Doctor's have a more well rounded portrayal and are certainly better than him, but I just love the way Christopher Eccleston delivered his real Time Lord power-type speeches. It's not really RTD's doing, though. RTD had a few rare dark moments but Christopher Eccleston just was so effective at it.
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
maharg said:
I think what's dark is the content of what's happening, and the reasons behind it.
RTD wrote a story where humanity derived enjoyment out of watching reality shows where the losing contestants were executed live on air. He had a group of ordinary humans ready to tear themselves apart and kill an innocent person because they thought they could save themselves by doing so. He wrote a story in which the last survivors of the universe dedicate their entire lives to finding 'Utopia' only to discover that there is nothing but the end of the universe left for them and then travel back in time and massacre their ancestors. He had the world devolve into fascism and people carted off to camps. He had the Doctor decide that he was above the laws of time and talk about saving 'little people'. That's what I consider to be dark.
Moffat writes great atmospheric horror, but I'm struggling to think of anything he's written that I would consider dark. The Beast Below has some dark moments (namely the way that the humans willingly choose to forget the sacrifices being done for their sake because they can't handle living with that knowledge), but it falls apart in execution.
I would really be interested in what Moffat has done that you would consider dark.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Empty ChildKuwabaraTheMan said:
Doctor Dances
Blink
Silence in the Library
Girl in the Fireplace
The Time of Angels
PhoncipleBone
Banned
It is late and I am hopped up on allergy meds, but I hope you are being serious Amirox. I trust that you are.Amir0x said:
The only thing RTD did that was near Moffat dark levels was Children of Earth. Well, Waters of Mars as well.
Dark ideas mean nothing if the execution is poor.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Phew.Amir0x said:
I agree that they are some of the best of new Who. It will be VERY hard for them to top Blink. It was the perfect blend of horror and timey wimey.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Impossible Planet and Satan Pit were good standouts in series 2. Impossible Planet especially. A great horror vibe and wonderful build up to a cliffhanger.isny said:
KuwabaraTheMan said:
The Angels only send you into the past to feed, which apparently they can do off of a number of energy sources instead. As we saw with one of the soldiers of the Byzantium, they can easily kill you by snapping your neck and then using your body as a body to talk through or if they birth another Angel through you.
Being sent to the past is an option not a guarantee.
These fuckers were intimidating because as soon as they know about you, they come at you with lightning speed in the moments when you specifically cannot see them. Like The Silence, they are everywhere you are not looking.
You guys have said the word "dark" enough that it really doesn't mean anything anymore.
RTD was good at the darker side of human nature. Midnight is the best demonstration of that, and it's some of his best writing. Cramped, claustrophobic, and wonderfully dark.
Moffat's good at a story that's dark in tone. The monsters that are always there in the corner of your eye is a running theme. The unease of being threatened by something that can't be seen is dark on a fundamental nature.
Now, as per writing quality as a whole, I think Moffat is more consistently good. RTD had high ups and absolutely abysmal lows, and Moff's run has been good to very good to excellent, depending on the episode. RTD is a great idea man, but falls through when the ideas are put into motion.
Also, Moffat's characters seem more realistic, to me. Like Rory. Rory's a normal person in the TARDIS. Or Van Gogh. Only very rarely is the "tortured genius" ever done well. Hell, even the Dalek cyborg guy had a bit of conflict to him. (I know that wasn't Moffat writing that episode, but the point stands.)
I think RTD's biggest advantage in making episodes was the phenomenal doctors. Eccleston and Tennant were both incredible, and they could usually make even a crap script watchable. When they weren't around to save it, though, you got Love and Monsters.
RTD was good at the darker side of human nature. Midnight is the best demonstration of that, and it's some of his best writing. Cramped, claustrophobic, and wonderfully dark.
Moffat's good at a story that's dark in tone. The monsters that are always there in the corner of your eye is a running theme. The unease of being threatened by something that can't be seen is dark on a fundamental nature.
Now, as per writing quality as a whole, I think Moffat is more consistently good. RTD had high ups and absolutely abysmal lows, and Moff's run has been good to very good to excellent, depending on the episode. RTD is a great idea man, but falls through when the ideas are put into motion.
Also, Moffat's characters seem more realistic, to me. Like Rory. Rory's a normal person in the TARDIS. Or Van Gogh. Only very rarely is the "tortured genius" ever done well. Hell, even the Dalek cyborg guy had a bit of conflict to him. (I know that wasn't Moffat writing that episode, but the point stands.)
I think RTD's biggest advantage in making episodes was the phenomenal doctors. Eccleston and Tennant were both incredible, and they could usually make even a crap script watchable. When they weren't around to save it, though, you got Love and Monsters.
Oh I don't know. Ripping you away from the world you know and everyone you've ever met to live life in a more primitive time?KuwabaraTheMan said:
You're being silly. It's like saying there wouldn't be anything scary about someone drugging you, kidnapping you, an leaving you alone in another country or on an island somewhere on the other side of the planet.
They don't grant you happiness. they just send you into the past. The fact that the two victims in the story happened to be fortunate enough to wake up right next to nice people is basically just luck.
I mean, for example, take the black policeman who got sent back in time. Not only was his entire career and everything he worked for basically made irrelevant, but imagine how screwed he would be if he was sent back to the 1700s or something instead of the Sixties. Or even the '20s like Sally's friend? I know the RTD era of Doctor Who liked to be revisionist about how much skin color mattered in the past, but let's be real. Like the man said, black people can't fuck with time machines.
Dr Zhivago
Member
Davies haters out in force I see.
The RTD era had a good balance of writers. Davies wrote the 'crowd-pleasing' episodes while Moffat & Cornell did the 'fan-pleasing' ones. I did wonder when Moffat took over if he'd aim the show more at the fans than the general audience, and that does appear to be happening. Fine for the fans of course, probably not good for ratings and the show's long-term future.
Also, as far as I'm concerned Amy wishing the Doctor back in The Big Bang is exactly as bad as the Doctor's return in Last of the Time Lords. In some ways it's worse, since Davies at least established a mechanism (however lame) by which 'energy' could be transferred to the Doctor. The Big Bang's rationale was basically 'Amy slept by the Crack, so she's magic.'
The point about the lack of social or political commentary in Moffat's work is an interesting one, not really noticed that before.
A specific criticism I have of Day of the Moon is that the sheer number of unresolved plot threads is going to make the forthcoming standalone eps seem like 'filler', which is a mistake - I don't really want the show to turn into Lost.
The RTD era had a good balance of writers. Davies wrote the 'crowd-pleasing' episodes while Moffat & Cornell did the 'fan-pleasing' ones. I did wonder when Moffat took over if he'd aim the show more at the fans than the general audience, and that does appear to be happening. Fine for the fans of course, probably not good for ratings and the show's long-term future.
Also, as far as I'm concerned Amy wishing the Doctor back in The Big Bang is exactly as bad as the Doctor's return in Last of the Time Lords. In some ways it's worse, since Davies at least established a mechanism (however lame) by which 'energy' could be transferred to the Doctor. The Big Bang's rationale was basically 'Amy slept by the Crack, so she's magic.'
The point about the lack of social or political commentary in Moffat's work is an interesting one, not really noticed that before.
A specific criticism I have of Day of the Moon is that the sheer number of unresolved plot threads is going to make the forthcoming standalone eps seem like 'filler', which is a mistake - I don't really want the show to turn into Lost.
Keyser Soze
Member
etiolate said:
I read this as Sherlock 5 times, and was so confused :/
bengraven said:
Which does raise an interesting question: Why's she so certain? Why does she *have* to encounter the Doctor in 'reverse order', as it were? Why can't a version of him a hundred years older turn up next week - in her timeline - and, well, give her that she was fearing losing?
KibblesBits said:
Oooh, that raises a question - does he merit full Companion status? He's certainly done more than most guest stars, but hasn't actually bridged two stories (which puts him behind Adam - poor guy).
He *could* be a fantastic recurring character - and I wouldn't be surprised if he was back, given his appearance at Lake Powell at the start of this two-parter. That's still not quite clear.
Jintor said:
Never seen Jonathan Creek? If not, that's a *fine* show with which to fill the summer lull.
(Although I *think* Adam Klaus is Anthony Head in the pilot, missing for the first series, and re-appears in the second? Something like that)
Edit: Can you tell I'm wading through the overnight posts?
JonathanEx
Member
Can I just point out RTD's had 4 series and a series of specials to cover a breath of genres, styles and approaches and Moffat's had 15 episodes so far. Maybe Moffat's not had a Midnight style thing on humanity, but that took 4 series to get Midnight.
There's been some good criticism both ways (though I don't get the level of hate for Moffat) and although he didn't write it, if you wanted an episode that dealt with "DARKER" emotion Vincent and the Doctor was pretty special.
I think sometimes Moffat's episodes could just do with a bit more room to breathe - like, Beast Below, it didn't come together, possibly 1hr long could have? And then last night's episodes - we did see what happened straight after Amy was shot, we saw (and it was implied why) they were being chased, but things happened so quickly and explanations can be said fast that it doesn't sink in.
---
Oh and this episode, how does River know it's the last time, possibly doesn't know it's the exact last time however it's the realisation that she's getting closer to the day of her death and meeting the Doctor knowing he know is starting to know her.
There's been some good criticism both ways (though I don't get the level of hate for Moffat) and although he didn't write it, if you wanted an episode that dealt with "DARKER" emotion Vincent and the Doctor was pretty special.
I think sometimes Moffat's episodes could just do with a bit more room to breathe - like, Beast Below, it didn't come together, possibly 1hr long could have? And then last night's episodes - we did see what happened straight after Amy was shot, we saw (and it was implied why) they were being chased, but things happened so quickly and explanations can be said fast that it doesn't sink in.
---
Oh and this episode, how does River know it's the last time, possibly doesn't know it's the exact last time however it's the realisation that she's getting closer to the day of her death and meeting the Doctor knowing he know is starting to know her.
JonathanEx
Member
Also, Danny Cohen, anything he touches turns to shit. See: BBC Three, BBC One since late last year.
My evidence: yesterday's overnight figures for BBC One:
17:45 .. 1.7 (12.3%) .. (Don't Scare The Hare)
18:00 .. 5.0 (29.7%) .. (Doctor Who)
18:15 .. 5.5 (30.7%) .. (Doctor Who)
18:30 .. 5.7 (31.0%) .. (Doctor Who)
18:45 .. 2.9 (16.7%) .. (So You Think You Can Dance)
19:00 .. 2.7 (15.3%) .. (So You Think You Can Dance)
Don't Scare The Hare, I believe, is officially the worst lead-in to an episode of Doctor Who since 2005.
And then look at that drop afterwards. The idea is "people will watch Doctor Who and then stay on to watch that!" Which part of the Doctor Who audience goes "Oh boy, I loved some time traveling science, now to watch some prats dancing"
Even Doctor Who can't save your shite programming Danny. I'm going to say something I didn't want to, but TOTAL WIPEOUT WAS BETTER. A better show, and better viewers, and a better lead-in. And Over The Rainbow wasn't also as crap as Dance in terms of viewers.
BRING BACK 7PM ETC ETC.
[at this point Doctor Who's 5.4m average isn't disastrous, it's still good, and then the Live + 7 figures will bring it up obvs]
My evidence: yesterday's overnight figures for BBC One:
17:45 .. 1.7 (12.3%) .. (Don't Scare The Hare)
18:00 .. 5.0 (29.7%) .. (Doctor Who)
18:15 .. 5.5 (30.7%) .. (Doctor Who)
18:30 .. 5.7 (31.0%) .. (Doctor Who)
18:45 .. 2.9 (16.7%) .. (So You Think You Can Dance)
19:00 .. 2.7 (15.3%) .. (So You Think You Can Dance)
Don't Scare The Hare, I believe, is officially the worst lead-in to an episode of Doctor Who since 2005.
And then look at that drop afterwards. The idea is "people will watch Doctor Who and then stay on to watch that!" Which part of the Doctor Who audience goes "Oh boy, I loved some time traveling science, now to watch some prats dancing"
Even Doctor Who can't save your shite programming Danny. I'm going to say something I didn't want to, but TOTAL WIPEOUT WAS BETTER. A better show, and better viewers, and a better lead-in. And Over The Rainbow wasn't also as crap as Dance in terms of viewers.
BRING BACK 7PM ETC ETC.
[at this point Doctor Who's 5.4m average isn't disastrous, it's still good, and then the Live + 7 figures will bring it up obvs]
Keyser Soze
Member
Cat Deeley has huge shoes. You'd think that would garner a few 10,000 more viewers
APZonerunner
Member
RTD is sorely missed in one area, though - as an internal ambassador within the BBC. RTD and Julie Gardner fought tooth and nail on every single series for 7pm or as close to it as possible, and that does have a notable knock-on effect on the ratings.
I don't think Moffat's as strong on that stuff, and neither is Piers (Julie's replacement), and so for the past two years Who has taken a right battering on the ratings, slipping now from 6:45 or 7pm regular starts down to a regular start time of 6pm. Day of the Moon got 5.4 million on the overnights. The weather is great, but that's not all. The scheduling this year sucks. It has a shit lead-in and shit follow-up and it's on way too early.
Boo hiss. The Fires of Pompeii, the second episode of series four, got 8.4 million viewers overnight - THEN it got more on the Time Shift stuff. That's a pretty vast gap. Some people are saying the drop is due to the general public finding Moffat's ideas too much, but I like to give the public more credit than that - I think it's down to the poor scheduling. I just wish they'd fight more. Say what you will about RTD's stories, but he was just ridiculously good at forcing the BBC's hand into making Doctor Who their #1 show on a Saturday night and giving them loads of extra time so episodes could run over and extra money so they could do more at the last minute. In that sense, he and Julie are dearly missed.
I don't think Moffat's as strong on that stuff, and neither is Piers (Julie's replacement), and so for the past two years Who has taken a right battering on the ratings, slipping now from 6:45 or 7pm regular starts down to a regular start time of 6pm. Day of the Moon got 5.4 million on the overnights. The weather is great, but that's not all. The scheduling this year sucks. It has a shit lead-in and shit follow-up and it's on way too early.
Boo hiss. The Fires of Pompeii, the second episode of series four, got 8.4 million viewers overnight - THEN it got more on the Time Shift stuff. That's a pretty vast gap. Some people are saying the drop is due to the general public finding Moffat's ideas too much, but I like to give the public more credit than that - I think it's down to the poor scheduling. I just wish they'd fight more. Say what you will about RTD's stories, but he was just ridiculously good at forcing the BBC's hand into making Doctor Who their #1 show on a Saturday night and giving them loads of extra time so episodes could run over and extra money so they could do more at the last minute. In that sense, he and Julie are dearly missed.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
Didn't the full ratings plus iPlayer numbers show that last year's series was the most popular? That would only mean that viewership is moving from live viewing to one more convenient for everyone.
APZonerunner
Member
Regulus Tera said:
It was the most watched thing on the iPlayer, but that's just part of a general shift towards internet viewing. Every year the number of people watching the iPlayer is going up. Unfortunately, being taxpayer funded the BBC has to take everything into account - there are taxpayers out there with poor quality internet or who just can't use a PC well - and they have to work out what's going on with the regular ratings.
Seeing as the iPlayer is mostly PC-based, you'd expect a family show designed to be watched by mom, dad, brother and sister together to do better on broadcasts than online. Success is being found in other areas, thankfully - overseas sales remain strong and the US audience in particular is growing quickly (though not as quickly as Torchwood) but the drops in the UK are still disappointing, as they put the show's budget for future years at risk.
The other thing is those iPlayer stories - about Doctor Who getting more requests on the iPlayer than any other show - they were specifically about The Eleventh Hour. The End of Time Part Two broke the same records, and the reason is simple - to roughly quote Chris Eccleston, talking of when he was a kid: "I never used to watch Doctor Who, but I would always tune in when something big happened, like when there was a regeneration. I remember when they showed the inside of a Dalek..." It was Matt's first episode, and that alone made it event TV in a different way than when David took over.
We've got timeshifts to come, of course, but even after that I'd say - sadly - this is probably going to be the least watched series opener since 2005. The question is where that audience is going.
JonathanEx
Member
There's a large shift to timeshift viewing (lol) - so iPlayer did even it out a lot. I don't have the full ratings for S5 to hand - but as a response to this sort of viewing the BBC created "Live+7" in November 2010, so S5 will have had estimates to what proportion of iPlayer hits were people who hadn't seen it on TV, but from this year we'll get more accurate ones.Regulus Tera said:
KuwabaraTheMan said:
This is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read on GAF. I'm not even really knocking your opinion, since it is just that, I just couldn't begin to comprehend how you came to this conclusion.
RTD's run felt like children's television even at the time, but comparing the two now it seems impossible to imagine they're the same show.
A lack of subtlety, consistency, forward-planning, plot structure, a level of scientific knowledge higher than a five year old's. All of these faults were RTD's and more.
The lack of thought he put into the various images and characters (which were often interesting in themselves) was obvious simply by watching one of his production meetings on Confidential. He'd just throw anything onscreen and he didn't care whether it stuck or not.
He also didn't seem to think it important to use a director who could light and frame the show better than a supermarket deli counter.
I thought Season 1 was a little iffy since it was trying too hard to have a Who vibe. Season 2 was absolutely brilliant (to me). And I adored Children of the Earth. Torchwood is not afraid to take chances and be brutal with its characters. Some people hate that, but I admire RTD for it.brucewaynegretzky said:
WrenchNinja
Member
So, I may have missed it but...what happened to the 1103 year old Doctor's TARDIS? Was it even addressed?
Oh yeah, got to say that bearded Eleven looks great.
Oh yeah, got to say that bearded Eleven looks great.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
More than that, I think.Green Scar said:
9->10
Yana->Master
Jenny->Jenny
10->healing/hand
10->11
11->failing in the first episode this season
Girl->Girl
I was going to say the same. Perfectly reverse is just as unlikely as perfectly forward order.jdogmoney said:
Generally, Moffat has a much better handle on scary and 'dark' (whatever this thread is interpretting it as) than RTD.
But season 1, due to its simple-lighting/TV Soap aesthetic (largely abandoned by season 2 onwards) had some really creepy moments. 'Dalek' was fantastic with this. The way the Dalek was introduced, all poorly lit and with so much menace that even that single unit on its own sends the Doctor into a screaming fit was gut-punchingly good.
I often find that about low-budget TV, though. The less well made it all looks, the more frightening it might be. The episode about the alien living in the TV during the coronation, that shit gave me goosebumps. The TV was broadcast old, low-budget material! That shit is freaky when it turns evil.
I am entirely undecided as to whether this creepiness is a result of the low-budget TV aesthetic itself or simply because it is a limitation a director has to get super creative to get around.
About last night's episode: good stuffs. I'm still of the mind the "calls the highest authority" is simply a RTD-style 'we need an excuse to get Richard Nixon involved because that'd be cool' thing, but otherwise it was really well crafted.
Aside: why are alien species never absolutely terrified of the Doctor? Either they've been around long enough as a species to know about the Time Lords so they should shit themselves at the mere mention of his existence, or if they don't know about the Time Lords they should realise how impossibly advanced his technology is compared to theirs and so should be afraid anyway.
But season 1, due to its simple-lighting/TV Soap aesthetic (largely abandoned by season 2 onwards) had some really creepy moments. 'Dalek' was fantastic with this. The way the Dalek was introduced, all poorly lit and with so much menace that even that single unit on its own sends the Doctor into a screaming fit was gut-punchingly good.
I often find that about low-budget TV, though. The less well made it all looks, the more frightening it might be. The episode about the alien living in the TV during the coronation, that shit gave me goosebumps. The TV was broadcast old, low-budget material! That shit is freaky when it turns evil.
I am entirely undecided as to whether this creepiness is a result of the low-budget TV aesthetic itself or simply because it is a limitation a director has to get super creative to get around.
About last night's episode: good stuffs. I'm still of the mind the "calls the highest authority" is simply a RTD-style 'we need an excuse to get Richard Nixon involved because that'd be cool' thing, but otherwise it was really well crafted.
Aside: why are alien species never absolutely terrified of the Doctor? Either they've been around long enough as a species to know about the Time Lords so they should shit themselves at the mere mention of his existence, or if they don't know about the Time Lords they should realise how impossibly advanced his technology is compared to theirs and so should be afraid anyway.
Keyser Soze said:
They were amazing.
I'm getting tired of the BBC fucking around their flagship now, using it as a means to prop up the rest of their pathetic Saturday lineup, it's shades of the RTD era when Who was batted around to test the way for other drama viability in different timeslots.
And I'll repeat it again. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK IN BRIGHT SUNLIGHT!!! For the first time in ages I watched it live - even with my blinds down, it's too bright...too hot...and next doors stereo is booming out. Watched it again at 1.00am - dark, chillier and lovely and quiet to savour the experience. FOR GODS SAKE BBC, MOVE IT BACK TO A SEPT / OCTOBER start!!!!!!!!!!! 6.00pm is an insult, especially for a show of this quality to save the likes of I THINK YOU CAN DANCE (Cat's shoes not withstanding - how the fuck did she manage to stand up!?!).
Oh and Don't Scare the Hare. With all the possiblities television has to offer, I have to wonder what type of person forces their way into such as a competitive industry as TV and then decides to use their 'intelligence' to come up with something like that? Dreadful. I bet even the Gadget Show dude was wishing he was back on Channel 5 with his two birds reviewing the next Android phone.
- Status