Doctor Who 2014
- Thread starter The Mad Collector
- Start date
(I do wish he would lose that sonic screwdriver, though, as it is a too easy 'get out' for difficult situations.)
Moffat is no good at writing women. He never writes real women, they are always Mary Sues. Pond, River and Clara = Mary Sues, every one of them.
And if he thinks he gets brownie points for having a lesbian couple, he's wrong. He writes Vastra and Jenny from a very male viewpoint. The whole posing semi-naked for a painting? No. Vastra flirting with Clara in front of Jenny and Jenny letting her get away it like some soppy little girl? No.
Moffat can't write women to save his life.
As for this:
Those of us who regard it as crap are as much entitled to an opinion as you. And I for one do not expect to be insulted for not squeeing like a little girl! You don't agree? Fine. Doesn't give you the right to be insulting.
Ok, just seen it and on the whole I liked it, the effects were largely well done, yes it was heavily referential to The Girl in the Fireplace but Capaldi looks as though he is growing into the role and has already said that at the end of filming his first series he didn't think he had quite got it right yet. I agree with Tony that getting rid of the relationship concept that has dogged the last two doctors can only help the series go forward, this is a reboot back to a classic doctor one who has companions in only one sense of the word.
I'll re-watch it tomorrow evening to pick up on the details first time round you are still just getting used to the new dynamics
I'll re-watch it tomorrow evening to pick up on the details first time round you are still just getting used to the new dynamics
You want me to not be polite? Just ask, and I will oblige. Because quite frankly, going all ad hominem on you seems attractive right now.
If you have nothing positive to say about Doctor Who as it is now (which it seems that you don't), then I suggest you bugger off out of this thread. This is for actual fans, not for whiny opinionated types who think they can do better than Moffat, when in reality, they'd probably churn out crap that is worse than The Twin Dilemma. If you think you can do better than Moffat, then I'd love to see you try, and fail, miserably. Moffat has his faults, but frankly, it could be a hell of a lot worse. Try to enjoy the good things about Doctor Who. And if you think there aren't any, then you are in the wrong thread, and the wrong fandom for that matter. Goodbye, and try not to let the door hit you on the way out. You won't be missed.
Criticism is fine. But negativity isn't, and that's all I hear from you.
Just because you are entitled to your opinion doesn't mean we are entitled to have it inflicted on us as well. And frankly, are there any eras of Doctor Who that you regard as being not crap?
If you have nothing positive to say about Doctor Who as it is now (which it seems that you don't), then I suggest you bugger off out of this thread. This is for actual fans, not for whiny opinionated types who think they can do better than Moffat, when in reality, they'd probably churn out crap that is worse than The Twin Dilemma. If you think you can do better than Moffat, then I'd love to see you try, and fail, miserably. Moffat has his faults, but frankly, it could be a hell of a lot worse. Try to enjoy the good things about Doctor Who. And if you think there aren't any, then you are in the wrong thread, and the wrong fandom for that matter. Goodbye, and try not to let the door hit you on the way out. You won't be missed.
Criticism is fine. But negativity isn't, and that's all I hear from you.
Just because you are entitled to your opinion doesn't mean we are entitled to have it inflicted on us as well. And frankly, are there any eras of Doctor Who that you regard as being not crap?
OK - that's quite enough. :naughty:
As far as I'm concerned, of course people can be negative on these threads as well as positive. We get negativity on some of the Discworld pages as well. I understand that it's hard to read negativity about a book, film or TV show that you personally liked, but that's life. People have different feelings and opinions of just about everything. This is no different.
Having opposing viewpoints is a good thing. It encourages debate and discussion. When that debate and/or discussion turns to hurling abuse at each other, then it is time to stop. An argument is never won by the person who shouts the loudest or is most abusive.
Mirandashell, I don't agree with all your comments and I am prepared to give the series a try before completely dismissing it. Q wasn't aiming his comments about about "frigging killjoys" purely at you. He goes on to explain why he thinks that the people who hated the episode are wrong. I don't see "frigging killjoys" as an insult, polite or otherwise. I hope you will reconsider leaving and continue to post here.
Q - I think your last post was out of order. You've written in what seems like an angry mood and gone into attack mode without thinking. As I previously stated - people are entitled to their opinions, whether you agree or not. Mirandashell went on to explain what she doesn't like about Moffat's writing just as you explained what you liked about it. That seems to me to be the perfect opportunity to discuss a subject from both points of view.
Please - the both of you and anyone else that doesn't like another's point of view, please take a moment to think about the argument before you start hurling insults. We don't do that here - well not very often.
As far as I'm concerned, of course people can be negative on these threads as well as positive. We get negativity on some of the Discworld pages as well. I understand that it's hard to read negativity about a book, film or TV show that you personally liked, but that's life. People have different feelings and opinions of just about everything. This is no different.
Having opposing viewpoints is a good thing. It encourages debate and discussion. When that debate and/or discussion turns to hurling abuse at each other, then it is time to stop. An argument is never won by the person who shouts the loudest or is most abusive.
Mirandashell, I don't agree with all your comments and I am prepared to give the series a try before completely dismissing it. Q wasn't aiming his comments about about "frigging killjoys" purely at you. He goes on to explain why he thinks that the people who hated the episode are wrong. I don't see "frigging killjoys" as an insult, polite or otherwise. I hope you will reconsider leaving and continue to post here.
Q - I think your last post was out of order. You've written in what seems like an angry mood and gone into attack mode without thinking. As I previously stated - people are entitled to their opinions, whether you agree or not. Mirandashell went on to explain what she doesn't like about Moffat's writing just as you explained what you liked about it. That seems to me to be the perfect opportunity to discuss a subject from both points of view.
Please - the both of you and anyone else that doesn't like another's point of view, please take a moment to think about the argument before you start hurling insults. We don't do that here - well not very often.
Well, um, I quite liked it. I think the fact that I was missing the 11th Doctor and it was a bit of a dark and moody episode made me enjoy it less the first time, but I thought Capaldi was great in his own right. I also liked the new angle on the clockwork robots. Enjoyed it more on second viewing. Looking forward to seeing him in a non-intro episode.
I think the fact that I was missing the 11th Doctor and it was a bit of a dark and moody episode made me enjoy it less the first time, but I thought Capaldi was great in his own right. I also liked the new angle on the clockwork robots. Enjoyed it more on second viewing. Looking forward to seeing him in a non-intro episode.
Well, let's get onto a related, and doubtless no less controversial topic: the Daleks.
Next episode is the Daleks' contractual obligation appearance, Into the Dalek. While I am trying to keep an open mind about this story, it hasn't escaped my attention that the Daleks are overused, something no doubt a lot of you will probably agree with me here.
There is a reason, apparently. When I said 'contractual obligation appearance', it was only half a joke. I heard somewhere that under the agreement between the BBC and Terry Nation's estate, the Daleks have to feature at least once per year in the new series. This is why, for example, a badly damaged Dalek appears briefly in The Wedding of River Song, or one appears in a flashback in The Waters of Mars.
Many of the Dalek stories of the new series have been enjoyable, with the only real dud one being Victory of the Daleks (a real shame, too, given that it had an excellent concept, albeit one used before in the Second Doctor's debut, The Power of the Daleks), but I do agree that they're overused, and the stories aren't as original as they can be. Of the new series stories, the only relatively original (or at least interesting and different) are Dalek, and Asylum of the Daleks. The former, admittedly, is an abridged adaptation of a far superior story*, but is nonetheless the only Dalek story from the new series that I'd give a perfect score, while the latter actually did interesting things with the Daleks (and made a frightening new variation on the Robomen from the classic series), and the main flaw had to do with that contrived soap opera BS with Rory and Amy getting a divorce.
The Daleks are admittedly monolithic characters, basically being Space Nazis in pepperpot-shaped tanks. But it is possible to write good stories for them, especially when they're being devious, or thrown into very different situations. David Whitaker's two Dalek stories from the Sixties proved that. So too do many of the Big Finish audio stories**, as well as Dalek. I can only hope that Into the Dalek is a good story.
*Dalek had its basis in a Big Finish audio story called Jubilee, written also by Robert Shearman. Jubilee is set partially in an alternate timeline where the Doctor saved England from a Dalek invasion in the early 20th century, only for a totalitarian dictatorship, the English Empire, based on Dalek technology and values, to rise and take over most, if not all, of the world. Due to a very complicated bit of timey-wimey stuff, the Doctor and his current companion, historian Dr Evelyn Smythe, end up a century later, where a lone Dalek is tortured in the Tower of London.
**I mentioned Jubilee. I have also listened to The Genocide Machine (about the Daleks invading a secretive library with a very dark secret of its own), The Mutant Phase (the Doctor and Nyssa enter a timeline where the Thals and the Daleks have a very tenuous truce to combat an extremely lethal variation of the Daleks known as the Mutant Phase), The Time of the Daleks (the Daleks make use of a rupture in time and a Shakespeare-obsessed dictator from the mid-21st century to prepare to conquer Earth...it make sense in context), The Juggernauts (the Daleks force the Doctor to act as their agent to capture Davros) and The Blood of the Daleks (Daleks offer help to a human colony, partly to track down a human scientist who is creating their own version of the Daleks, and also demand the Doctor be brought into their custody as a war criminal). I have also listened to Terror Firma and Dark Eyes, but those are slightly more standard stories.
Next episode is the Daleks' contractual obligation appearance, Into the Dalek. While I am trying to keep an open mind about this story, it hasn't escaped my attention that the Daleks are overused, something no doubt a lot of you will probably agree with me here.
There is a reason, apparently. When I said 'contractual obligation appearance', it was only half a joke. I heard somewhere that under the agreement between the BBC and Terry Nation's estate, the Daleks have to feature at least once per year in the new series. This is why, for example, a badly damaged Dalek appears briefly in The Wedding of River Song, or one appears in a flashback in The Waters of Mars.
Many of the Dalek stories of the new series have been enjoyable, with the only real dud one being Victory of the Daleks (a real shame, too, given that it had an excellent concept, albeit one used before in the Second Doctor's debut, The Power of the Daleks), but I do agree that they're overused, and the stories aren't as original as they can be. Of the new series stories, the only relatively original (or at least interesting and different) are Dalek, and Asylum of the Daleks. The former, admittedly, is an abridged adaptation of a far superior story*, but is nonetheless the only Dalek story from the new series that I'd give a perfect score, while the latter actually did interesting things with the Daleks (and made a frightening new variation on the Robomen from the classic series), and the main flaw had to do with that contrived soap opera BS with Rory and Amy getting a divorce.
The Daleks are admittedly monolithic characters, basically being Space Nazis in pepperpot-shaped tanks. But it is possible to write good stories for them, especially when they're being devious, or thrown into very different situations. David Whitaker's two Dalek stories from the Sixties proved that. So too do many of the Big Finish audio stories**, as well as Dalek. I can only hope that Into the Dalek is a good story.
*Dalek had its basis in a Big Finish audio story called Jubilee, written also by Robert Shearman. Jubilee is set partially in an alternate timeline where the Doctor saved England from a Dalek invasion in the early 20th century, only for a totalitarian dictatorship, the English Empire, based on Dalek technology and values, to rise and take over most, if not all, of the world. Due to a very complicated bit of timey-wimey stuff, the Doctor and his current companion, historian Dr Evelyn Smythe, end up a century later, where a lone Dalek is tortured in the Tower of London.
**I mentioned Jubilee. I have also listened to The Genocide Machine (about the Daleks invading a secretive library with a very dark secret of its own), The Mutant Phase (the Doctor and Nyssa enter a timeline where the Thals and the Daleks have a very tenuous truce to combat an extremely lethal variation of the Daleks known as the Mutant Phase), The Time of the Daleks (the Daleks make use of a rupture in time and a Shakespeare-obsessed dictator from the mid-21st century to prepare to conquer Earth...it make sense in context), The Juggernauts (the Daleks force the Doctor to act as their agent to capture Davros) and The Blood of the Daleks (Daleks offer help to a human colony, partly to track down a human scientist who is creating their own version of the Daleks, and also demand the Doctor be brought into their custody as a war criminal). I have also listened to Terror Firma and Dark Eyes, but those are slightly more standard stories.
I'm also a little worried about this weekends episode, the Daleks are overused although that was probably also a valid critique of what is now known as classic Doctor Who. What worries me more however is what will be this series "reappearing after a long interlude classic monster". Frankly we've had most of the really good ones and one or two of the rubbish ones; The Great Intelligence being a good example. Please let us not have Quarks, Dominators, Dracorians, Mandrels or Stigorax to name just a few and definitely not The Kandyman or even worse Zarbi and Menoptra.
