• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Doctor Who [Spoilers]

Quicksilver said:
Good grief.

I've tried, and tried and tried, but still can't drum up any enthusiasm whatsoever about this series.

I'm sorry, but it's a poor relation to the cult of Dr Who past.

The only interesting and slightly intriguing thing about it is the way that Billie Piper can look lovely in one shot and hideous in the next.
Click to expand...

It's strange, isn't it? I feel almost guilty for not wanting to watch my second episode -- feeling that I owe something to the 'the cult of Dr Who past', as you put it -- and, yet...*shrugs*

I also haven't worked out the Billie Piper thing yet, either -- I'm not sure what it is (I have the feeling, it might be mouth-related but, again...*shrugs*)

S'funny, I'm finding this thread quite fascinating now, despite not being a new Whobie (Whobian?) Maybe it's just the very agreeable opportunity to complain about stuff that you don't get a say in, one way or another. :)

Polterdog.
 
Polterdog said:
Rrose Selavy said:
The opening titles are far too rushed - Slow that star gate tunnel down.
Click to expand...

I think we're just up to the third episode here -- the one with the gas creatures (and this was the first episode I manage to see) but I have to say, Rrose, that this was the first indication to me, as well, that I was going to be sorely disappointed in what was to follow. If the opening credits from the 70s and 80s looked better than what was being presented on the screen in this new incarnation (pun sort of intended), then I didn't have much hope for what was to follow. :(
Click to expand...
Yeah, in a way that's the one thing that's niggling me - the opening credits used to be "Dr Who", piccie of current incarnation, episode title, and that's it. The character was the most important thing: now the emphasis is on the title actor. AND his co-star. The programme should be bigger than it's parts, IMHO.

Other than that I like it! Also agree the Dalek in the trailer last night does look more menacing somehow.. have they still got plungers?

BTW anyone ever worked out why they had plungers in the first place?
 
Because the BBC props department was having a major disagreement with their jobbing plumbers and regarded the tradesmen as inherantly evil.
 
stu neville said:
Other than that I like it! Also agree the Dalek in the trailer last night does look more menacing somehow.. have they still got plungers?

BTW anyone ever worked out why they had plungers in the first place?
Click to expand...

The story goes that they originally had a metal claw and that the sink plunger was a last minute substitute after they nearly impaled William Hartnell in rehearsal...thus are icons born.
 
The Daleks had a real problem with control buttons etc. but were strangely appealing to big boobed alien folk!
 
I liked how Russell T Davies managed to conflate two conspiracy theories ("our leaders are evil aliens in disguise" and "Iraq war for fuel") into one story line. It certainly made me laugh. :lol:
 
Stormkhan said:
Because the BBC props department was having a major disagreement with their jobbing plumbers and regarded the tradesmen as inherantly evil.
Click to expand...


Since the New Intergalactic Building Regulations were introduced in 2210 no one in the universe can afford to employ a plumber so they have to resort to DIY. There are a lot of leaks to deak with in space.
 
Austen said:
I liked how Russell T Davies managed to conflate two conspiracy theories ("our leaders are evil aliens in disguise" and "Iraq war for fuel") into one story line. It certainly made me laugh. :lol:
Click to expand...

"They have weapons of mass destruction that are capeable of being released in 45 seconds..."

:rofl:
 
Lord_Flashheart said:
"They have weapons of mass destruction that are capeable of being released in 45 seconds..."

:rofl:
Click to expand...
:D

I'm a bit surprised they let the BBC put it out this close to a general election considering stuff that's been pulled from the schedules at previous elections...probably revenge for the Hutton Inquiry.

I'd vote for Harriet Jones if she was standing.

The Slitheen's final words just before the missile struck:
"Oh BOL-"
:D
 
I didn't see the previous episode but the clip of the spaceship slicing into Big ben also reminded me of a certain real life incident.

-
 
I just sent this to the BBC's Talking Point about David Tennant. Something tells me it won't get printed though. Well, it might, but they're going to have to prune it a fair bit ;)

"Many comments are indicating that 'nothing'll compare to Tom Baker so he'll probably be rubbish'. Well, that's a bit unfair as each actor has always brought their own little quirk to the role, and you can't judge all actors against one, even though he was admittedly the best Doctor!

Before worrying about -who- is going to play the good Doctor, I think it'd be more appropriate to worry about who is -writing- the show. Compare the likes of 'Genesis of the Daleks' or 'Attack of the Cybermen' to what we're seeing now, and you'd be fooled into thinking that somewhere along the line Doctor Who became a sci-fi comedy family-fest. It never was and never should have been. The whole thing about Dr Who was that we had good solid sci-fi storylines with depth and character, as opposed to whimsical plots with farting aliens and comedy undertakers; the only humour was in the form of witty asides which came from the Doctor's aloof nature, and even these weren't every third sentence.

Hopefully, David Tennant can bring some of this back, but it'll only happen if we have stories which run over more than one or two episodes and the writers stop trying to make the Doctor into some kind of recognisable 'new man/matey' type character.

The charm of the Doctor always came from his detachment from the common concept of the archetypal male lead hero; you weren't ever meant to feel overly comfortable with him.

Oh yes, stop showing the spoilers for the next shows as well; are cliffhangers too much to ask for?"
 
I have to say i'm very impressed with the new doctor who seris, theme tune and all. I can see how people could find problems with it (imagine whats its going to be like on the board next week after everyones seen HHGTTG) but lets face its impossible to please everyone, as for the next episode preview at the end of each episode i don't mind that at all and in fact after seeing the preview for the dalek episode next week i cannot wait to see it, i even had to make sure my girlfriends student digs has BBC1 so i can see it when i visit her next weekend (i'm sorry if that seems a little sad but what are you going to do :D )
 
I rather like this series, but I hate the cliffhangers although the children went wild when they realised daleks are coming next week :D
 
Kids ain't wot they used to be. You have to keep them interested, but give 'em too many cliffhangers and they get bored and want to know what happens next NOW!

And the spoilers for the next episode aren't too bad. Imagine you're 8 years old; do you really want to spend the next 7 days thinking, "They all die so what's the point in switching on again," or would you rather think "How in the blue blazes did they escape from that then?"
 
Ravenstone said:
And the spoilers for the next episode aren't too bad. Imagine you're 8 years old; do you really want to spend the next 7 days thinking, "They all die so what's the point in switching on again," or would you rather think "How in the blue blazes did they escape from that then?"
Click to expand...

As an 8 year old I regularly did, and spent the week thinking about what on Earth/beyond could possibly come next! :)
 
Yes, but when we were 8, we didn't have a choice of over 50 channels, including the Sci/Fi channel. We didn't even have 4 channels. There's more competition these days. The Doctor can't be what it was; imagine, if you can, watching it for the very first time. How would you feel? Would you prefer the pazazz of Eccleston, with the special effects and the snappy dialogue? Or would you prefer the one camera angle Jon Pertwee?

And be honest!

Doctor Who was good back then. And it's good now. It's just a different good. And, for my money, much improved on the McGann film version, that just did not work, no matter what anyone says, or how many times it's watched!
 
Ravenstone said:
Yes, but when we were 8, we didn't have a choice of over 50 channels, including the Sci/Fi channel. We didn't even have 4 channels. There's more competition these days. The Doctor can't be what it was; imagine, if you can, watching it for the very first time. How would you feel? Would you prefer the pazazz of Eccleston, with the special effects and the snappy dialogue? Or would you prefer the one camera angle Jon Pertwee?

And be honest!

Doctor Who was good back then. And it's good now. It's just a different good. And, for my money, much improved on the McGann film version, that just did not work, no matter what anyone says, or how many times it's watched!
Click to expand...

I can honestly say that I would prefer Jon Pertwee! I'm reasoning along the lines of the argument which I apply to computer games these days i.e. all style and no substance. When I used to play text adventures on my Commodore 64, one of the best things about them was that they forced you to put yourself somewhere else in your head, as opposed to presenting you with graphical splendour. Likewise with Dr Who.. it was a programme that would feed the imagination, and you could let yourself run away with it slightly.. an ambiguous ending leading you to think "If I was the Doctor, I'd have done that instead". Now, like most modern matinees, it's start-middle-finish. Bang, there you go.

My attitude could be tempered if they brought back the stories that ran over four episodes or more, as this let you -really- get into it, rather than expecting a quickfire storyline where the dialogue is straight-forward with a few cheap laughs thrown in (and of course the obligatory soul-searching scenes which they've had in all the episodes.. Rose meets x - oh you could be so much more etc.. Rose's Mum - oh I've, like, missed you SO much? (with that annoying upward intonation at the end of the sentence)).

Longer storylines allow for character development, and you really feel as if you've had a meal as opposed to a hamburger. The third episode with Dickens could have been absolutely -awesome- if it had been over two episodes. It would have allowed for more dialogue with Dickens, which would've been a scream as Callow was perfect; and they could've developed the undertaker's assistant a bit more, so her death would have actually -meant- something. God forbid we could have a show with interesting polysyllabic dialogue in this day and age though :(

I just hope the writers, once they've gotten passed the 'getting everyone used to Who' again, can go for a more traditional approach. Long storylines, more effective dialogue, and a non-lobotomitic grinning Doctor.

For what it's worth, I reckon that Paul McGann would have been an excellent Doctor, it's just a case of him working from a decent script rather than the Hollywood-ised rubbish he was obliged to act out. Am I wrong in thinking he did some audio stuff? Was that any good?
 
Paul McGann did the online version of Shada - from the Douglas Addams script for Tom Baker that was never finished because of industrial action. I thought it was excellent.
 
No - no criticism of McGann himself. The script was an abomination, pure and simple.

I'm going to have to disagree with some of what you say, Mr. Snowman. Nothing personal ;)

Perhaps when the audience base is firmly established once more, they can go for longer story arcs. But not yet. It wouldn't be right, and it wouldn't work. Doctor Who would flop, and no-one wants that.

What we are seeing, with Rose and her friends/family, is the effect the Doctor has on normal lives. Which, to be frank, is something that was never really thought about before. This strange guy waltzes in, flashing blue box materalises in your porch, aliens try and kill you and take over the planet - then WHOOSH! he's gone. Okay, the assistants go with him, but what about the ones left behind?

As for the Dickens episode, I did thoroughly enjoy that one. Yes - it was patently obvious the Gelph were lying, but so what? It's a kids' programme; it's not meant to be in-depth. However, stretching it into two episodes would, I think, have involved a lot of padding. Taut, tight, judicial editing keeps the pace and maintains the excitement. Also, it's actually much harder to keep a story within the confines of the 45 minutes, rather than taking the easier choice of just saying everything you want, exploring all the characters, and stretching it over 2-3 episodes. If it's not necessary, why do it? It would just be messy writing.

I reckon we will see longer story arcs, but we can't just yet. Believe me, if they'd brought back Doctor Who like it was in the 80s, or like the McGann script, I would have rather it never came back at all. However, this incarnation I'm really enjoying.
 
Cliffhangers: RTD (on BBC3 last Sat. night said he) isn't keen on having them too often. Says that he can't see a case for having one every week, but feels they work better if rationed. Which seems a fair point until he followed that with the opinion that the cliffhanger that ended 'Aliens of London' was, paraphrasing 'cos I can't recall his exact words, totally amazing and brilliant. :shock: Reality check, RTD: it was merely 'OK'. :roll: Better than hanging off the edge of an ice-cliff by one's brolly, but not as good as being pretend-strangled by a strip of polythene kelp. IMO. :D

But I'm sure the newbies (actually, I think I'll go with 'Whobies': it's nice and succinct) get the message: the Doctor isn't human. (Is it once or twice per ep. that RTD's reminding us of that again?)

Onward.

As for the up-and-coming Dalek ep...

s

p

o

i

l

e

r



s

p

a

c

e

it seems that all the sections of this solo Dalek can spin around independently, and in a flash, so -according to one quote I've seen- no point in trying to sneak up behind it with a baseball bat...

Pity. That was a classic moment of the McCoy era. IMO.
 
That sounds sooo cool!:D

Maybe next season we'll get some CGI cybermen that are slick too, instead of the usual lumbering oafs.
 
Problem with any updated Cybermen designs will be making sure that they don't resemble the Borg, who are really just grungy Cybermen without the helmets and mask.

Otherwise we'll have Trekkies who don't know their SF history claiming that Doctor Who has totally copied Star Trek
 
There's a Cyberman in next week's ep as well as a Dalek - well, part of one at any rate, going by the "blink and you'll miss it" glimpse in the teaser at the end of "World War Three". By all accounts, there may be one or two other familiar sights dotted about the museum exhibits too, for all us sad old gits to recognise...
 
Ravenstone said:
Doctor Who was good back then. And it's good now. It's just a different good. And, for my money, much improved on the McGann film version, that just did not work, no matter what anyone says, or how many times it's watched!
Click to expand...

It's because it took place in California, isn't it? :)

There was nothing wrong with that script. It did what it was supposed to do -- offered an introduction of the Whovian universe to a wider American fan base; which it did...and successfully too, I might add.

One of the things that I was most impressed with was that they stayed true to the source material -- refusing to 'Americanize' The Doctor in any way, shape, or form and, at the same time, providing a bridge of continuity back to the original series with the inclusion of McCoy (which, in itself, was a very nice touch and one, I should point out, that they didn't have to indulge in, if they were interested in just making a cheap Hollywood knock off of the franchise.) And, let's face it, because of it's bigger budget, the special effects far exceeded anything that the BBC had been able to produce to that point, as well -- thus enabling the writers to more fully realize anything that had ever put into a Dr. Who script before (and, say what you want, but you have to have good special effects if you want a sci-fi series to be successful and this movie definitely upped the Dr. Who ante, in that regard.)

Ravenstone said:
No - no criticism of McGann himself. The script was an abomination, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

But didn't you say, in a previous post (and I'm paraphrasing), that you didn't know what McGann brought to the role? Isn't that a criticism of McGann and his 'doctoring' abilities? :)

At any rate, to each their own, right? I have no vested interest in his portrayal of The Doctor, one way or the other (I was always a Davison fan, myself.) But I agree with Mr. Snowman in saying that these new scripts are sorely lacking. Perhaps I'm judging the material a little too harshly, as I only have three episodes under my belt, but there doesn't seem to be very much meat on the bone, as it were. If Eccleston is even remotely carrying this stuff off (and I'm not sure that he is, based on what I've seen), then it's a real testament to his acting skills, and little else.

Polterdog.
 
I saw an advert for the next episode last night. A dalek chained up? Bondage dalek? It cracked me up! The imagery was hilarious! What next? Sontarans in drag?
 
Pretty much normal these days.

Its to stop the Chavs down the precinct from nicking the suits and using them to terrorise the galaxy.
 
Cybermen were my faves Very Happy
Click to expand...

Ditto, it's a pity they didn't get a decent plot since Tomb of.

Never bought the Doctor Who magazine but the last time I flicked through they had a rather good cyberman design, sleek and sort of based around triangles, keeping all the main elements that made it recognisable as a cyberman. That'd work well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top