BS: Doctor Who

Subject: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Apr 11 - 09:26 AM

I know there is already a thread on the history but how about we get up to date. Or me be even in future? :-)

Who saw last nights? I found it quite confusing but very well acted. I am sure it will all make sense over the next 12 weeks.

Anyone see any significance in the death/rebirth thing considering the time of year or am I just reading things in that aren't there?

Cheers

MP

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Apr 11 - 09:57 AM

It's just the original clever way back in the 60s/70s that the producers used to change actors.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Apr 11 - 12:37 PM

I don't just mean in general, FT. I would give the game away to anyone who has not seen it so suffice to say I am just talkling about last nights episode.

Incidentaly - Just found out it was released in the UK and US simultaneously - for the firat time.

MP

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 24 Apr 11 - 07:13 PM

am I just reading things in that aren't there?

Most assuredly; there was no death / rebirth thing, just the usual temporal hi-jinx framed with cod-Morricone driven overkill. So - business as usual really and a very entertaining start to the new season, though you would think they could have come up with a more convincing Nixon and a more original looking alien menance - at least one without such dumb looking claws.

What doesn't add up is that over the last 50 years the Doctor has had a fair few regenerations and yet 200 years hence it's still Matt Smith...

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Apr 11 - 02:29 PM

just the usual temporal hi-jinx framed with cod-Morricone driven overkill.

Blimey, I wish I had thought of that!

I thought Nixon WAS the alien menace but I didn't notice his claws though... :-)

MP

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 06:42 PM

Well, the second one explained the involvement of Nixon and the CIA - Sort of. But who is the girl? A time lord? Did the randy old (young) doc have it away with Amy? (Not that anyone would blame him - particularly if she was in the policewomans uniform. Stop that! Right now!)

Sorry, back to my old self again. Anyone else enjoying it?

MP

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 08:28 PM

"Anyone else enjoying it?"

Of course. And while I was waiting for it to start, I watched 'Frontier in Space' with Jon Pertwee, Katy Manning AND Roger Delgado! (Dr Who Heaven)

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 10:57 PM

Please remember this is a Saturday tea time children's tv show.

We are mature adults with with mostly at least half a century
of hard earned real life experience, pain and loss and despair..

..of course we'd find Dr Who plots over-contrived, far too rushed, confusing
and often completely unfathomable.


If in doubt, ask a bright fresh young 13 year old teen fan-boy geek
to explain every character and story detail
our failing memories cannot hope to possibly try to keep up with.

Also bear in mind the script writing is not as clever and plot-hole water tight
as the BBC would like us to believe...

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: DMcG
Date: 01 May 11 - 03:41 AM

Steven Moffit wrote some of the most brilliant episodes of the earlier series, such as Blink and The Empty Child. In my view the start of this series falls far short of that standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Stu
Date: 01 May 11 - 05:06 AM

Is River Song a time-lord?

. . . and that was certainly a time-lord regenerating at the end of last nights show.

Excellent stuff and very enjoyable.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 11 - 05:38 AM

Watchers of Dr Who need to develop the ability to suppress questions. If you grew up on Cliff Hanger Serials in the cinemas in the 50/60s, that is easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 May 11 - 03:06 PM

I grew up on Kellogs Cereals. Will that do?

MP

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 May 11 - 07:45 PM

Is River Song a time-lord?
. . . and that was certainly a time-lord regenerating at the end of last nights show.
Excellent stuff and very enjoyable.
Maybe an earlier/later version of "Romana" (female Time Lord as played by Lalla Ward, or by Mary Tamm).
Or maybe The Doctor's grand-daughter as seen in the very first series. (although it is never made clear whether she is also a Gallifrean)
There again, the "Doctor's Daughter" from a recent series has yet to reappear as well.

So many possibilities!

Cheers
Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 May 11 - 07:15 PM

I like the idea of regenerating sprog from this series being William Hartnell's Grand-daughter. What a twist that would be!

MP

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 03 May 11 - 03:48 AM

How about young Matt Smith meeting this little old lady called Susan?

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 May 11 - 04:08 AM

"Also bear in mind the script writing is not as clever and plot-hole water tight
as the BBC would like us to believe..."

A complete understatement!! It's just a soap opera with glamorous stars, added monsters and a load of lazy, 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along', completely inconsistent and arbitrary, gobbledegook.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 May 11 - 05:17 AM

Come on, Shimrod - Say what you mean. No need to beat abou the bush :-)

MP

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 May 11 - 07:01 AM

OK, MP I will.

Mind you if some people like Dr Who that's their business and no concern of mine. But as a long-term SF fan it just makes me 'hoppity wild' every time I catch even just a trailer ... I'll say no more ...

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 May 11 - 11:15 AM

He has managed to mix the "making it up as he goes along" with overtight planning and the planting of subliminal links that will be supposed to explain what is happening.

I've just been watching "Bowling for Columbine" and it has raised odd connections with this Dr Who, and another thread (guess which one that is). I'm wondering if there is some sub-text behind the rehabilitation of Nixon and the suggestion of the interference of the Silence in the running of the Earth.

Moore includes in his film a list of American interventions and establishing of dictatorships under the covert actions of the CIA. Could Moffatt be implying something about America - I'm sure he does not believe in the Silence, or Icke's reptiles running things? Nixon was not apparently involved in the illegal interventions removing elected governments of other states.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST
Date: 04 May 11 - 10:32 AM

I'm entertained by Dr.Who for the following reasons:
1. He relies on brains rather than brawn
2. He doesn't like guns
3. He thinks military solutions are pretty silly
4. He is a humanitarian
5. No god or religion in the show
6. He evinces hope for mankind in the face of those who don't
7. The show imaginative and seems to have a point-of-view underlying the                entertainment.
8.   Richard Dawkins had a brief appearance on the show. (I like Lalla Ward)

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 04 May 11 - 06:11 PM

I've just watched 'The Five Doctors' - could they do something like that nowadays?

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 11 - 06:04 PM

I have no idea how they got this out so quickly. Unless they used time travel...

It was a friends birthday today. Someone had got him a card with a picture of a 'Silence' in a party hat with the caption "No-one ever remembers my Birthday"

Sheer genius!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: DMcG
Date: 29 May 11 - 02:55 AM

I've been a quite avid fan of the revived Dr Who since it (re)started but have found the 2011 series lacking. We had relatives round last night and I realised I had completely forgotten it was on, which would not have happened for the earlier episodes. While I have it recorded, I don't feel I have to watch it as soon as possible. So the series is lacking something, for me. My daughter also said a week or so ago she is considering stopping watching it so that it doesn't spoil the memory of the earlier episodes. The growing frequency of double-episodes seems a bad idea to me - fine when the story is complex enough to warrant it, but bad when it feels a slim story has been stretched to near breaking point.

So what's the general view on the 2011 series?

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 11 - 03:17 AM

Definitely wasn't kid's stuff last night. I'll say nothing about the plot line if you haven't seen it but it is getting stranger and stranger! I don't think this episode has been as good as some but overall I find the series OK. I'll have to wait until the conclusion to decide if it was any better or worse than others.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: DMcG
Date: 29 May 11 - 04:02 AM

Rereading all the earlier posts, I can identify one thing that is missing from the new series (IMO) that hasn't been mentioned: it has not been thought-provoking. Take the episode 'Dalek' in series one where the doctor is on the point of killing the last dalek to be told 'you would have made a good dalek'. Or in the family of blood where in the last few moments it is explained how he is punishing them by giving them what they want. Or many, many others. I would say that at least a quarter of the stories have an intellectually deep phrase or moment like that (and that's what 'good science fiction' needs for me, by the way). As yet, I haven't been struck by one in the new series.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: DMcG
Date: 29 May 11 - 04:11 AM

Oh, to be clear, I don't just mean clever: I mean the kind of cleverness that makes you reflect on your own attitudes and behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 11 - 09:01 AM

That is why I am waiting for the full series to unfold before deciding, D. (I don't suppose it is my northern cousin Dave McGnome is it?) The last few have been leading toward a conclusion. OK - There have been the odd plot holes but who cares:-) I think we may just see this one concluding in a very clever way. But then again, I am used to disappointment!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: DrugCrazed
Date: 29 May 11 - 12:11 PM

I kind of called it.

Kind of.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Kit Griffiths
Date: 29 May 11 - 01:01 PM

"What doesn't add up is that over the last 50 years the Doctor has had a fair few regenerations and yet 200 years hence it's still Matt Smith..."

Yes, but you're thinking in linear time. It doesn't mean that he's been Matt Smith for 200 years -he could have got there next week (or 50 years ago) without actually living through those 200 years (unlike poor Rory, who had to live 2000 linear years as a Roman centurion). After all, when the Tardis takes the Doctor back in time, he doesn't revert to being Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker etc.

It's probably quantum. Most things seem to be these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: DMcG
Date: 29 May 11 - 01:40 PM

But when the the doctor claims to be 900 years old the only logical meaning is that that is the length of his personal time line, so if he claims to be two hundred years older and still looks the same there must have been two hundred years along his personal time line without a regenration, however the sections of that ptl map on to linear time. Or, more likely (a) its someone else (probably 'flesh') or (b) the script has overlooked the problem.

Anyway, its quite interesting that Rory is now twice as old as the doctor ...

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: DrugCrazed
Date: 29 May 11 - 02:42 PM

DMcG appears to have had the same conclusion as I for the solution to the problem in Episode 1.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 29 May 11 - 05:05 PM

I'm wondering if they're scripting outside the show nowadays. Last weekend I watched 'Doctor Who Confidential' part of which was shot at Cardiff Castle, and then the highlights of the Heineken Cup Final from Cardiff, with the introduction being given by the presenters standing outside Cardiff Castle from an almost identical camera position. This week I watched 'Wallander' followed by the 'Doctor Who' episode from earlier featuring Sarah Smart who played Ann-Britt Hoglund in the Branagh version of 'Wallander'. Is it my imagination or is the world now smaller than the inside of the Tardis?

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 May 11 - 06:47 PM

" Nixon was not apparently involved in the illegal interventions removing elected governments of other states."

Not unless you ignore the assassination of Salvadore Allende.

"The possibility of Allende winning Chile's 1970 election was deemed a disaster by a US government who wanted to protect US business interests and prevent any spread of communism during the Cold War.[37] In September 1970, President Nixon informed the CIA that an Allende government in Chile would not be acceptable and authorized $10 million to stop Allende from coming to power or unseat him.[38] The CIA's plans to impede Allende's investiture as President of Chile were known as "Track I" and "Track II"; Track I sought to prevent Allende from assuming power via so-called "parliamentary trickery", while under the Track II initiative, the CIA tried to convince key Chilean military officers to carry out a coup.[38]
During Nixon's presidency, U.S. officials attempted to prevent Allende's election by financing political parties aligned with opposition candidate Jorge Alessandri and supporting strikes in the mining and transportation sectors.[39]"

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 May 11 - 06:56 PM

Doctor Who isn't Shakespeare or fantastic theatrical writing.

It's a lot of fun and I think good entertainment. It gives me lots of laughs and I enjoy it
because I refuse to take it seriously.

I think the music is pretty good comparatively to other shows, also.

I see the characters as funny entertainment figures and I like the fact that Dr. Who doesn't cotton to military solutions or solving problems with weapons. I like a hero that uses brain over brawn.

I like the nutty smiles of Tom Baker and Chris Eccleston.

I like Romana and particularly since she's married to Richard Dawkins.


Hey people, it's TV entertainment. Lighten up.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: DrugCrazed
Date: 29 May 11 - 07:27 PM

I've been less than impressed with this current series. Not as good as the last series, but there were some very enjoyable things.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: DMcG
Date: 30 May 11 - 03:07 AM

Doctor Who isn't Shakespeare ... Hey people, it's TV entertainment. Lighten up.
I believe Shakespeare wrote his plays as entertainment, not as material for school examinations.

I don't buy the argument that because something is entertainment it is sufficient to look good and pass the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Amergin
Date: 30 May 11 - 04:37 AM

I have a hard time liking this current Doctor...he's too cartoonish, and wimpy.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 30 May 11 - 03:34 PM

The new Doctor seems to getting back to basics - all it's needs is a 95% reduction in the budget and replacing the CGI with latex. Still, at least they had the wit not to show the shuttle in last night's episode - nice touch! As was the reference to Tom Baker ('...would you like a jellybaby?') - all this and Marshall Lancaster too, so it's well on track & cracking TV to boot. Good times for TV these days - Nighshift, Shameless, Ideal, Vic Reeves' Rogues Gallery - almost worth the license fee.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Naemanson
Date: 30 May 11 - 08:04 PM

As for the show being a children's show that is a topic of conversation between me and my wife. Her first exposure to The Doctor was Christopher Eccleston. She really enjoys what she's seen so far. One of these days I'm going to buy a few episodes of Tom Baker and see what she thinks of those.

Anyway, she doesn't see it as a children's show but as a show for adults and children. I'm not so sure.

As for an opinion of Matt Smith as The Doctor I guess I'd have to say I'm disappointed but then I've been disappointed before by actors in that role. Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy were disappointing. Hell, it was tough making the transition from William Hartnell to Patrick Trughton and Jon Pertwee to Tom Baker. So I'm willing to ride this horse for a while longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 May 11 - 08:19 AM

As for being a children's show.
This week's cliffhanger might revise that notion.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: DMcG
Date: 31 May 11 - 08:37 AM

I think Doctor Who is a children's show in the same sense that the Narnia stories are for children, or the Alice books, or the majority of the traditional story tales. Namely, it is possible to thoroughly enjoy them at that level, but the (better) stories simultaneously deal with much deeper material that is truly adult. To take Narnia as an example, for a change, in "The Last Battle" there is a paragraph explaining the difference between Aslan and Tash which is so simply written a child can understand it, but is also conceptually very sophisticated. And if you don't know the reference: now's the time to read the book!

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 31 May 11 - 10:24 AM

now's the time to read the book!

No way - such thinly veiled Christian propagandising has no place on a Dr Who thread. Kids get Traditional Stories on a level no adult ever could - adults areway too sophisticated to get the immediacy of it, Dr Who likewise. I think Robert Cormier had it about right - when they made the film of The Chocolate War he was forced to rewrite the ending to make it apealing to adults - or at least what adults thought was more suitable to a kids film - but kids faithful to to the novel were justifiably outraged by the untypical up-ending (in every sense). The most disturbing book I ever read (Cormier's stuff notwithstanding) was Diana Wynne-Jones Fire and Hemlock which pitches True Thomas and Tam Lin into a twisted tale of evident evil and imminent adulthood; a kids book, but as an adult I doubt I got the half!

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: DMcG
Date: 31 May 11 - 10:45 AM

Ok, we'll agree to differ on Narnia! Please translate the comment into the equivalent for, say, Cinderella if you feel more comfortable with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Naemanson
Date: 01 Jun 11 - 02:59 AM

This last couple of seasons have The Doctor doing more things in which he manipulates time more than the old Doctors. I enjoyed the Christmas Carol special episode though I had not expected to. I liked the way he kept going back to visit the boy in order to change the old man.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Jun 11 - 04:45 PM

Entertainment is something that entertains someone. Everything doesn't have to be great art. It can be pretty good and make you laugh. That's what Dr. Who does for me. I don't take it seriously but as good fun.

The "willing suspension of disbelief" is immediately broken when space creatures start speaking in North Country English or Brit slang. I find that in itself hilarious.

As the Dr. says, "Every planet has a North". (Only true of Earth, I think).

In the meantime, it's a merry romp with the special effects and interesting characters, not the ponderous ones you see on cop and crime shows or "shoot-em-ups".

The show has a good humor about it which belies the conspiracy theory that it has subterranean messages (Christian or otherwise).

Again, lighten up. It's supposed to be fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jun 11 - 07:12 PM

Well, I was a classmate and pal of one of the Doctors.

I usually get asked "What planet was that on?" :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 06:42 PM

So now we know who River Song is, or at least partly.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 03:21 AM

The series finale was back to the absurd excesses of the Tenant Tenure, which was a shame after the lumbering sit-com sci-fi of the preceding two episodes. Too much budget & CGI as I say; and having a Sontaran offering to wet-nurse a human (for all intents and purposes) baby is maybe a joke too far.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Stu
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 07:13 AM

Loved it. Great series so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 05:21 PM

It's funny but I find myself not caring for the new series because the dialogue is often muffled and the plots are confusing. The one about the "gangers" was not too interesting, I thought. I appreciate the Matt Smith is a good actor but I miss the swashbuckling sense of adventure that Tom Baker and Chris Eccleston brought to the character. They seemed like more fun than Tenant, who I liked, or Smith, who I haven't really gotten used to.

I like the character of Riversong, a kind of Dragon Lady but Karen Gillam seems too bland for my tastes. I liked the incoherence of Katherine Tate's character. I guess it's just a matter of opinion.

I wish they would sharpen up the dialogue on the new series so that it isn't reminiscent of a parody of "Actor's Studio" where the naturalized speech patterns are sometimes, at least for me, unintelligible. I know the Brits know how to speak well when they want to.

The monsters are beginning to look alike, as well, an elongated giant insect with the face of a human used in the last episode and on the one where the man tries to create his fountain of youth but takes a wrong turn with his DNA.

Maybe it's just me but I think the earlier episodes were a little more intelligent and less formulaic.