Official Doctor Who Thread

Well, I can't really see that about a specific assassin being reasonable, seeing as anyone can shoot the Doctor. It's not as if there was anything about River that was particularly Doctor-countering.

'Who else?' is an odd thing to have said in response to the 11 room, too. Moffat's not really a big guy on long-term continuity; he just lets the ideas flow as his current style demands.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, I can't really see that about a specific assassin being reasonable, seeing as anyone can shoot the Doctor. It's not as if there was anything about River that was particularly Doctor-countering.

'Who else?' is an odd thing to have said in response to the 11 room, too. Moffat's not really a big guy on long-term continuity; he just lets the ideas flow as his current style demands.

I forgot he said "Who else."

Your point about River is well-made. I can only assume it was one of those predetermined "time" things, like River having to break her wrist because the Doctor read it in a book. Or, more generally, a fixed point that the show often references.

"The historical records say a woman in an astronaut suit kills the Doctor by this lake."
"Ok, so let's get a woman in a suit to hide in the lake until we know he'll be there."

That seems to jive with the Doctor being able to see the date in his TARDIS before it actually happened to him, as if it were a fixed point in time that always happened the same way.

I'm not sure why it's so bothersome to you though. In terms of continuity, I'm actually impressed with the amount they managed to explain the admittedly loopy finales for seasons 5 and 6.

Who was it in that room?

We don't know, but it had to do something with the Tardis as that was the emergency alarm

No, we do know. The crack was in the room. The misleading part was that the Doctor said "who else" when it wasn't a 'who.' That was the continuity thing Ush referred to.

Oh so the crack was in the room the doctor went into and said "Who else?"

I've always been a details guy when it comes to continuity, and aside from anything else I like to look at long term stories as a puzzle; when there is a mystery on-screen, there should be answer X to it which is a logical culmination of the situation as seen.

I like to think about X, and I do get rattled when it turns out to be Y rather than X, where Y is something not logically connected in the same way. To me, that undermines the premise. The spacesuit coming out of the water, for example, was very cool, and in that respect The Impossible Astronaut was a great episode, but the payoff was random, which is a shame.

It's just a stylistic aspect of Moffat's approach that I'm not big on- but it only bothers me,. It doesn't kill my enjoyment or anything. And he certainly gets marks for at least getting those explanations in there.

It's not unlike the cliffhanger problem- it's one thing to make a good cliffhanger (like Tennant being exterminated and regenerating), but another to make a good cliffhanger that also resolves satisfactorily next week (like Tennant and the weirdness with the hand). In that respect, Moffat actually has the best one of New Who, with his cliffhanger and resolution in The Empty Child and The Doctor Dances.

I am not liking the way they seem to be making all the "Classic" villains on the show seem to be getting more and more of JOKES!

God I wish Moffat would leave.

His Sherlock stories are good...but his Doctor who's are lacking, I miss Russell T Davies

I'm a bit conflicted, tbh. While I, for the most part like the way they connected everything, it still came across as something of a hail mary to me. A last minute connect the dots rather than something they'd been building up to all of this time.

I like Matt Smith as the Doctor, but I honestly feel like the last season or two, as much as I've raved about it, is a bit tricky.

Though I did find Smith's regeneration to be emotional. Damn feels.

YouTube video

Moffat as a showrunner is, perhaps, the correct area of critique. His overarching ideas seem less fully formed, the payoffs less satisfying, the connections too loose and arbitrary. However, as a show writer he remains unparalleled, imo. Forget the early writing work for Eccelston and Tennant that got him the showrunner gig. He's given us some gems since then too, including the (imo) perfect 50th. Like, S6 ended with a thud, but a big part of it was because we compared it to how amazingly it began. Whatever his faults as a showrunner, I can forgive him because of such moments.

I am excited that it's starting back up soon.

It's looking interesting. It's also a blank canvas for Moffat to start again with- not that I am expecting anything radically different, but the simple thing with Moffat is that I generally love his stuff (and did way before he was on Who). If I've not been 100% on all of his Who efforts of late, it by no means means I've lost faith in him and I want to see him take another crack.

Another thing with Moffat is that he always has interesting ideas. Even when his stories don't pan out, there was always an interesting concept behind them. In that respect, I far prefer Moffat to, say, Chris Chibnall, who is by no means bad (and a reliable workhorse who can put out fully formed stories quite regularly is golden), but I always just feel so totally uninspired by his stories, even his better ones. He doesn't have that spark of genius.

It's the same reason I am happy for Mark Gatiss to keep trying with Doctor Who stories, even though he keeps missing the mark. He's also a genius and he does such brilliant stuff; he HAS to get that perfect Who story in one day.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's looking interesting. It's also a blank canvas for Moffat to start again with- not that I am expecting anything radically different, but the simple thing with Moffat is that I generally love his stuff (and did way before he was on Who). If I've not been 100% on all of his Who efforts of late, it by no means means I've lost faith in him and I want to see him take another crack.

Another thing with Moffat is that he always has interesting ideas. Even when his stories don't pan out, there was always an interesting concept behind them. In that respect, I far prefer Moffat to, say, Chris Chibnall, who is by no means bad (and a reliable workhorse who can put out fully formed stories quite regularly is golden), but I always just feel so totally uninspired by his stories, even his better ones. He doesn't have that spark of genius.

It's the same reason I am happy for Mark Gatiss to keep trying with Doctor Who stories, even though he keeps missing the mark. He's also a genius and he does such brilliant stuff; he HAS to get that perfect Who story in one day.

👆

Peter Jackson will direct an episode

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/doctor-who-showrunner-says-peter-721153?utm_source=facebook

At least Capaldi is not going to hang round kids playgrounds talking to little girls. Although typical of the BBC, not a high point for Dr. Who.

Yeah. That's Moffats job.

But then NuWHO's main audience is little girls on playgrounds.

Originally posted by Kamahamaha
At least Capaldi is not going to hang round kids playgrounds talking to little girls. Although typical of the BBC, not a high point for Dr. Who.

Yeah..i've been reading he's going to be darker, He's also suppose to be not flirting with his female companion

Originally posted by Flyattractor

But then NuWHO's main audience is little girls on playgrounds.[/color] [/B]

Wrong.

So what did people think of the episode. We still really don't know the doctors personality yet will take a few episodes. Have seen a lot of negative comments mostly from young girls wanting a younger doctor (shocking)

The episode was a bit all over the place, ups and downs, so not a flying start- but Peter was very good and I'm looking forward to see where it goes.