Originally posted by Zampanó
I liked this a lot. USH, I'm not sure why this would shake the "casual" viewer; if anything it seemed like an easing in point for all sorts of factoids: "The Doctor stole the TARDIS? Who knew?" and "Didn't the set look different last season?" are the first things that come to mind.Also, I loved the bit right before we get the closeup of Rory's corpse. The writing on the walls fit right in with the bit in the Asylum in Ep II, and then we finally get to see Amy feeling bad about Rory, instead of the other way around.
Edit: I registered at Gallifrey Base a while ago, and I am confused about the concept of "casual viewer" in general. Who episodes are more self contained than many serials; why would any one episode be harder to follow than, say, Boston Legal was?
Edit II: This season has been great; Matt Smith has really grown into his role and the writing just keeps getting better.
You need a perspective shift for the casual viewer; if you think stuff like the Doctor stealing the TARDIS satisfies that demographic you have the perspective all wrong (and he already said it in The Big Bang anyway).
The casuals don't care how he got the TARDIS.
This was a VERY geeky sci-fi episode- and furthermore, one very much focussed on Doctor Who geekiness in particular. It is challenging to give an episode like that broader appeal.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You need a perspective shift for the casual viewer; if you think stuff like the Doctor stealing the TARDIS satisfies that demographic you have the perspective all wrong (and he already said it in The Big Bang anyway).The casuals don't care how he got the TARDIS.
This was a VERY geeky sci-fi episode- and furthermore, one very much focussed on Doctor Who geekiness in particular. It is challenging to give an episode like that broader appeal.
(This is coming from the perspective of an American new to the franchise, so there might just be a difference in the cultural approach to the show.)
Casuals are the people who see Doctor Who as a piece of general entertainment rather than following it as a fan would- casual is the opposite to fan. They don't always watch it, they don;t run their lives around it and they stop watching it if they don't think it is any good (whilst it takes a LONG time to kill fan interest in a franchise- look at Heroes)
And whether you understand it or not, the fact is that viewing figures- and therefore Who's long term future- depend on that casual audience. The fans alone cannot carry it and the show died last time they tried.
Casuals will never, ever care where he got the TARDIS from and spacy-wacy is just so much gabble to them. The post-2005 episode with the biggest casual share so far was Voyage of the Damned- by miles. An episode almost no fans care about.
Walking that line between keeping the casual interested and pleasing the fans is a damn difficult one. This season, so far, has leant more towards the fan-like.
I was misunderstanding the term, then.
I wonder if this is a main difference between British and American programs. I like the LOST example; it was hugely popular but not very accessible to "drop in viewers." Maybe the franchise will get a little more stable fan-base as the show continues to become more popular in America.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Casuals are the people who see Doctor Who as a piece of general entertainment rather than following it as a fan would- casual is the opposite to fan. They don't always watch it, they don;t run their lives around it and they stop watching it if they don't think it is any good (whilst it takes a LONG time to kill fan interest in a franchise- look at Heroes)And whether you understand it or not, the fact is that viewing figures- and therefore Who's long term future- depend on that casual audience. The fans alone cannot carry it and the show died last time they tried.
Casuals will never, ever care where he got the TARDIS from and spacy-wacy is just so much gabble to them. The post-2005 episode with the biggest casual share so far was Voyage of the Damned- by miles. An episode almost no fans care about.
Walking that line between keeping the casual interested and pleasing the fans is a damn difficult one. This season, so far, has leant more towards the fan-like.
It seems to me, that the mentality of keeping the casual fan around (at least this season so far) goes something like, Make the Doctor charming and funny, put Amy in something skimpy and they won't worry about the plot or the scaryness. You can then pander to the fans all you want.
Whether it pans out or not, thats to see.
But from what I've heard, (and this is completely unscientific) the American response has been very good. So thats good for the show too.
Curse of the Black Spot had higher ratings then the Doctor's Wife
http://www.sfx.co.uk/2011/05/15/doctor-who-the-doctor%E2%80%99s-wife%E2%80%9D-ratings/
Season6 ratings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(series_6)
Well, huh. My friends describe the first 2 episodes as "the most epic DW episodes ever." which seems a bit of a misnomer. They were clever, intricate, creepy as hell, timey-wimey, etc. but not really "epic" in the sense I generally think of the word (mostly referring to the scope of something). Season 4 was "epic" in my book, for comparison, though say whatever else you will about it as a season (since it wasn't all great). The End of Time was epic. This was just a cool way to start the series, will give it a lot to do over the rest of the season.
I liked the speech though. Where he pops in and does the bit with the TV. I pretty much always love the speeches.
Don't really give a damn about the plot grabber at the end. I suppose we'll find out whenever we do.
Yea, It'll get wrapped up next episode. Although nice to see a two parter that doesn't cliffhang on everyone's apparent death. There are other ways to get people to stick around besides the immediate threat of death.
I'm enjoying this episode. good to see Rory branching out a bit more too. Amy playing second fiddle in the Ep, makes Rory seem like a more legitimate character.
I know some will disagree with me on this, but Canton clearly said that it was "definitely the Doctor" who died just after AMy said it might be a clone or the like.
I feel that a simple "He was lying/deceived" is an inappropriate rebuttal to that; dramatically speaking, Moffat was telling us something there.
Of course, there has to be SOME way out of it, maybe involving split time lines or the like, but I do feel Moffat was specifically nixing a clone (or clone-like) angle there.