Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

happygolucky wrote:I personally like smith BUT I do think the scripts moffat are making are putting him to shame...

Same here, I personally enjoy Matt Smith's acting, but it seems that he gets lugged with bad scripts and plots. I'm at the point like many other have mentioned before where they "don't particularly enjoy it, but watch it for the sake that a good episode may come along", of which I thought the doll episode and the older Amy concept were pretty good ideas, but the previous ones are mostly a pile of crap. I'm probably the first one to say this, but my favourite Doctor was the Christopher Eccleston incarnation, mainly due to the episodes he starred in: he wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty, launching missiles against Downing Street (with himself inside it!), taking on the Emperor Dalek himself, and I'm not asking for particuarly violent plots, these ones just had more faster-paced action than the more recent ones, such as the Flesh plots, and the Hitler one, but the Demon's Run episode was a notable exception, apart from those freakish monk creatures.

And River, don't get me freaking started on River. Fair enough, they introduce a new character who matches up to the Doctor's abilities, someone who can travel through time, has a sonic screwdriver, and knows the Doc better than anyone else, fair enough. But now, they introduce more and more extraordinary plots which quite frankly make no sense at all. River is Amy and Rory's daughter? For feth's sake, Mr. Moffat.

If you're still reading my rant, congratulations for making it this far, take a break, have a biccie before you continue.

I think overall the real killing blow for the show is the constant resurrection of old enemies. Cybermen, Daleks (granted, they're the trademark enemies), Sontarans, etc, the writers feel they have to bring them back all the time, creating more absurd reasons why they're there, simply because of the fact that they're old hostiles.
Cybermen created by an insane genius? Good idea.
Cybermen crossed to another universe through a temporal rift? Still a nice idea.
Cybermen still somehow return by falling though the same rift which many times before had been mentioned as completly sealed and nothing could pass through it? For feth's sake.

Daleks recreated by the Emperor? Again, I loved those episodes.
Daleks enter through that rift? Ok, they followed the Cybermen in that Void Ship, still a decent idea nonetheless.
Daleks again return in Manhattan, this time creating Human-Dalek hybrids? Getting a bit silly now.
Daleks attack Earth, as now the last surviving Dalek has teleported back and brought the army with him, because Mr. Moffat won't let them die? Lost interest.
Daleks are now in WWII Britain, being attacked by Spitfires? Even their Skittles reincarnation won't save them from this, surely, and I have a feeling it won't be the last we'll see of them. ¬¬
This is what I'm trying to get across, everytime an older enemy returns, their plot is strung out more and more until they're flogging the metaphorical horse, classic example: the Weeping Angels in Blink, by far my most favourite episode. The Weeping Angels more recent episode? Waste of a couple of hours, as now they can warp into video footage, infect people forcing them to keep their eyes closed (pathetic idea really), and can be fooled by people keeping their eyes closed into thinking that they're in plain sight, despite the fact they were described in Blink as intelligent, brilliantly fast lonely assassins.

God, that was a huge rant.

And all true.

Valkyrie wrote:Daleks attack Earth, as now the last surviving Dalek has teleported back and brought the army with him, because Mr. Moffat won't let them die? Lost interest.

That one was still RTD. And to be honest, it doesn't seem that far fetched. Dalek Kan escaped through a emergency temporal shift and landed in the Time War. Makes sense to me.

Anung Un Rama wrote:

Valkyrie wrote:Daleks attack Earth, as now the last surviving Dalek has teleported back and brought the army with him, because Mr. Moffat won't let them die? Lost interest.

That one was still RTD. And to be honest, it doesn't seem that far fetched. Dalek Kan escaped through a emergency temporal shift and landed in the Time War. Makes sense to me.

Yeah, I understood it, but it was the fact that they mentioned before that the war was "time-locked" or whatever you called it, that nothing could enter it. They then did it again, using the Master to bring the Daleks and Time Lords back again, despite it being mentioned again that it was "locked".

You fellers do better than me at following Dr Who. I find that not remembering stuff from one wek to the next really helps with just enjoying it.

Of course this is not a skill, just age. What was I talking about again?

I think the main problem is cost. I noticed that the last ep was shot in a manner to blatantly obviously reduce costs on the series.


It takes place in a handful of rooms with a minimum of people. If I was the scriptwriter, I'd be pulling my hair out when BBC told him he had to make an ep this cheaply, so I don't really blame Moffat or Smith for this one, I blame the bean counters at BBC.

I have to say, I love the show, but I miss the Tenant and Eccleston days. Moffat is trying way too hard to make everything interwoven and interconnected in the latest series. It feels like he's trying to keep the show episodic, as with most Who episodes, but he desperately wants them to not be episodic. When the episodes are connected, it's really obvious that they are - like how the woman kept showing up throughout the first half of the series. Conversely, the entirety of Eccleston's brief tenure as the Ninth Doctor had just episodes - each one was separate from each other, as each one was just another trip the Doctor took Rose on. Then at the very end, during the finale, they brought them all together with the Bad Wolf plot, and made the audience go "Whoa! I didn't even notice that!".

As much as I like Matt Smith's Doctor, I dislike the style change in episodes.

(If any of this makes no sense whatsoever, it's because I'm typing at 2 AM. I'm not even a hundred percent sure this garbled mess of a post makes even a lick of sense )

It makes perfect sense Locclo, and i totally agree, it was the hidden messages and over-arching plot that caught everyone out that made it so clever.

im not liking the most recent stuff....Although i agree with BaronIveagh that it was obviously made on the cheap, as was last weeks i thought.

This isn't cheap you heatherns, this is what Dr Who is supposed to be like at its best!

Just go back to the Peter Davidson times and before and revel in its wonky cardboard sets and foam rubber monsters, then you might appreciate the large (for the BBC) budgets.

Well, while there certainly is a charme to the more "cheaper" trashy looking episodes, it was actually pretty annoying, when the Doctor threw himself at a steel dor in the 2nd Angels episode and you could see it move.

That’s called acting philistine!

He was "being" the steel door.

Pretty moving stuff all told.

Yeah cheap sets are part of Doctor Who, some of the reasons it's so quirky and unique is because the scriptwriters have had to get creative with what they had to hand rather than getting whatever their imaginations desired.

On Moffat, I think his biggest problem is getting a bit carried away with the mythos stuff, same as RTD and the fact that River Song is a really unlikeable character who distorts the show in directions I don't like. (Such as the Doctor suddenly tolerating exessive firearms use from her, when he wouldn't tolerate it from anyone else. In fact, he says he loves it at one point.)

River was alright in a couple of episodes (up til the third angel episode she was still okay) but I really started to hate her after that. That's when the whole show seemed to get a bit more giddy and self satisfied, too. It seems to be calming down again now, but it badly needed to.

The major difference I think between Moffats and RTD's stories is, that Davis used time travel only as a set-up for a story, by bringing the Doctor and his companion in certain place where they have to do something. Moffat's stories use time travel as the main plot device.

Opinions on last night's episode?
I reckon it was a good idea, but could have been executed a little less heavy handedly.

Next episode looks disturbing.(As in, that actor back again?)

While I am happy about seeing the cyber-men I audibly groaned when I saw James Corden was returning.

corpsesarefun wrote:While I am happy about seeing the cyber-men I audibly groaned when I saw James Corden was returning.

I like James Corden...

Da Boss wrote:Opinions on last night's episode?
I reckon it was a good idea, but could have been executed a little less heavy handedly.

Next episode looks disturbing.(As in, that actor back again?)

After watching only the first episode of this current half-series and being completely turned off by it, I sat down hoping to be brought back into the light...

...turns out I prefer sitting in the shadows. It was terrible in my opinion. I'm starting to think half of these scripts were written on April 1st.

corpsesarefun wrote:While I am happy about seeing the cyber-men I audibly groaned when I saw James Corden was returning.

I saw cybermen and was considering watching next week's, I then saw JC and decided that I definately wasn't going to.

purplefood wrote:I like James Corden...

I am disappoint.

What's the problem with James Corden?

He just isn't a good actor to me. He isn't funny and doesn't really stand out.

Last night became too cringy by far towards the end. But at least

What's wrong with James Cordon? While I personally think Gavin & Stacey was incredibly overrated, and World Cup Live was an utter trainwreck, he's a decent actor and can inject a bit more lighthearted fun in to the series. If anything can save Who from going the way of The Simpsons, it's a jolly fat bloke.

I am the biggest. Fan. Ever.

I might have just missed the bit where they explained it, but was it ever really explained why the place they were in took the form of a hotel on Earth?

Fezman wrote:I might have just missed the bit where they explained it, but was it ever really explained why the place they were in took the form of a hotel on Earth?

Wrong, it's that all hotels in the universe look like ones on earth. Kinda like time lords, they don't look human, we look like them......right....right???


Honestly tho, if you just watch it for a good 'technobabble timey whimey kinda show' it's great. If you want some grand story being told in individual episodes that over-reach into a awsome plot twist......you are going to be disapointed. Which is kinda sad because the bad-wolf plot twist was great. Although they have all but took out a billboard on high street to say that 'River is important,keep watching and if you are lucky you just might catch a glimpse of her or get a tidbit about her."

It's kinda like 40k if you ask how power armour works and want anyother answer that " It just does accept it and move on, buy more spacemarines' then you are in for a world of hurt and disapointment.

PS I really do miss Tennent and Ecclestone (spelling?)....just something about them clicked with me.

Fezman wrote:I might have just missed the bit where they explained it, but was it ever really explained why the place they were in took the form of a hotel on Earth?

It's psychic concrete. It looks however they want it to look.

Fezman wrote:I might have just missed the bit where they explained it, but was it ever really explained why the place they were in took the form of a hotel on Earth?

It was supposed to take different forms according to whom it snatched, but as it broke down it became stuck on that setting.

reds8n wrote:

Fezman wrote:I might have just missed the bit where they explained it, but was it ever really explained why the place they were in took the form of a hotel on Earth?

It was supposed to take different forms according to whom it snatched, but as it broke down it became stuck on that setting.

Which is also why all the past 'fears' were still hanging around, they hadnt been 'cleaned up'

Another "okay" episode for me. Didn't exactly wow me, but I was entertained.

And for Gork's sake, can you please use Spoiler tags, when you talk about the "next time"-bit.

Not a big fan of that one at all, not sure which was worse the Hitler episode or that one.

Valkyrie wrote:I think overall the real killing blow for the show is the constant resurrection of old enemies.

I agree entirely. See Davros for further proof of the diminishing returns to be gained from resurrecting old villains.

Still, i for one am happy that (this spoiler is dedicated to Anung Un Rama) :