Loved it until the last five minutes. I was looking for a better explanation than I got...maybe in a future episode?
true
didn't know if she was talking to the doctor or danny or rupert or a sibling or an older younger generation, and why did it have to be related to the war doctor, still the loved the episode in general though
I was wondering how others were to react, 'cause I too was sat there thinking it was one of the best episodes made. It just had everything, topped off with amazing performances.
Capaldi has absolutely settled in to be a quite spectacular doctor already in my book, he switches between terrifying and stupidly funny very quickly and it's quite a talent.
You've clearly missed the point. We don't know what was under the bed.
Never was it confirmed that it was a kid playing a prank and never was it confirmed that "it was all a dream".
It's up to you to decide. It was deliberately ambiguous.
No, it was ambiguous. That was the point. The most terrifying thing about the idea of there being something around us, stalking us, that we can't see, is that we can never ever know for sure. And the most thought provoking aspect of the episode is that we cannot know if the Doctor is right or mad. A recurring theme I think. Maybe he's spent his whole life running towards his fears, trying to confont something that's actually all in his mind.
I got the point. I just didn't like it and I think I've figured out why .I think that my issue is that f this had been a one off occasion where it is left ambiguous I'd be like okay that's fine.
However with Moffat everything is ambiguous! Look at S5 we start off with a clear simple storyline. But in the end we are left with more questions than answers. Then S6 pretty much ignores all those questions so we get an S6 finale that not only negates the unfinished plot of S5 but raises more unanswered question from S6 itself.
Then in S7 we get essentially an entirely new story that abandons the previous 2 series for a new storyline with Clara. A storyline which itself raises questions which the 50th just sort of glazes over. And then we get the final Smith episode and goes back to answer the question of S5 and S6 in such an incredibly rushed way.
Basically after adoring S5 and most of S6 (up to the finale) Moffat hasn't ever really commited to one story. It's never here is my beginning, here is the journey of the story, here is the ending. Say what you will about the RTD era his series were always wrapped up, With Moffat every answer raises two more questions. Every now and again it is fine but when you do it again and again it just shows me IMO that you dont actually know where the hell you are going and instead just making it up.
And that was really apparent to me in Listen. We get the great opening which Moffat is good at. Good concept and creepiness which he is good at. Then the ending is like "ehhhh I dont really wanna commit to anything so here is any old ending". Yet again we are left to fill in the gaps.
I want him to just be like this is the ending! Not umm here is the ending but you make up your own mind.
Also I have no issue with ambiguous but there is a difference between ambiguous and things that really just dont make sense.
its such a shame the mods are too busy with other things right now to sort things out for us as they usually do.
We have had to go it alone this week and make are own way, keeping the Official thread near the top with lots of comments (although thats not hard today it is less likely to stay like that later) and having to have this thread as an unofficial thread and poll for the episode!
To be fair, you should have alerted the thread and had it stickied when it was started. Then you should have alerted the mods again and asked for the poll to be added immediately the episode ended, not wait more than an hour before doing so.
DOCTOR: Fear makes companions of all of us. That's right. BARBARA: I never thought once you were afraid. DOCTOR: Fear is with all of us, and always will be. Just like that other sensation that lives with it.
didn't know if she was talking to the doctor or danny or rupert or a sibling or an older younger generation, and why did it have to be related to the war doctor, still the loved the episode in general though
That is easy. She was telling the child who grew to become the Doctor that one day he would return to that same barn .... and he did. As the War Doctor.
I think the boy-Doctor was in some sort of a boarding school - the woman who came to the barn looking for him was wearing a skirt and apron as worn by a school nurse or Matron, and the man with her was a little head-teacher-y to me..
This would tie in nicely with Rupert's experience in the children's home - both little boys living an institutionalised life, and heartened by the same words.
I got the point. I just didn't like it and I think I've figured out why .I think that my issue is that f this had been a one off occasion where it is left ambiguous I'd be like okay that's fine.
However with Moffat everything is ambiguous! Look at S5 we start off with a clear simple storyline. But in the end we are left with more questions than answers. Then S6 pretty much ignores all those questions so we get an S6 finale that not only negates the unfinished plot of S5 but raises more unanswered question from S6 itself.
Then in S7 we get essentially an entirely new story that abandons the previous 2 series for a new storyline with Clara. A storyline which itself raises questions which the 50th just sort of glazes over. And then we get the final Smith episode and goes back to answer the question of S5 and S6 in such an incredibly rushed way.
Basically after adoring S5 and most of S6 (up to the finale) Moffat hasn't ever really commited to one story. It's never here is my beginning, here is the journey of the story, here is the ending. Say what you will about the RTD era his series were always wrapped up, With Moffat every answer raises two more questions. Every now and again it is fine but when you do it again and again it just shows me IMO that you dont actually know where the hell you are going and instead just making it up.
And that was really apparent to me in Listen. We get the great opening which Moffat is good at. Good concept and creepiness which he is good at. Then the ending is like "ehhhh I dont really wanna commit to anything so here is any old ending". Yet again we are left to fill in the gaps.
I want him to just be like this is the ending! Not umm here is the ending but you make up your own mind.
Also I have no issue with ambiguous but there is a difference between ambiguous and things that really just dont make sense.
I have several points to this.
Firstly, Listen is deliberately ambiguous and the way it is written isn't as sprawling and elaborate as his arcs. It shouldn't be put into that context at all.
As for ending it, it would completely ruin the context of the episode to give a definitive: YES there was a monster and you should all be scared of it. Because what that monster wants and how it operates would all have to be explained and simply there is no answer to that.
And this, really is the key point of this spiel. THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE WAY OF SAYING NO. You can't say that there is no monster and that is where the ambiguity stems from. We didn't see a monster at any point, we saw a series of events with rational explanations that were all explained and we, the audience ASSUMED that there was a monster, purely because the Doctor did. There is no make up your mind, the Moff told us that there was no monster and we're all sat here like: shit what if there was, because we can't disprove the idea. And that's exactly what he wants :P
I got the point. I just didn't like it and I think I've figured out why .I think that my issue is that f this had been a one off occasion where it is left ambiguous I'd be like okay that's fine.
However with Moffat everything is ambiguous! Look at S5 we start off with a clear simple storyline. But in the end we are left with more questions than answers. Then S6 pretty much ignores all those questions so we get an S6 finale that not only negates the unfinished plot of S5 but raises more unanswered question from S6 itself.
Then in S7 we get essentially an entirely new story that abandons the previous 2 series for a new storyline with Clara. A storyline which itself raises questions which the 50th just sort of glazes over. And then we get the final Smith episode and goes back to answer the question of S5 and S6 in such an incredibly rushed way.
Basically after adoring S5 and most of S6 (up to the finale) Moffat hasn't ever really commited to one story. It's never here is my beginning, here is the journey of the story, here is the ending. Say what you will about the RTD era his series were always wrapped up, With Moffat every answer raises two more questions. Every now and again it is fine but when you do it again and again it just shows me IMO that you dont actually know where the hell you are going and instead just making it up.
And that was really apparent to me in Listen. We get the great opening which Moffat is good at. Good concept and creepiness which he is good at. Then the ending is like "ehhhh I dont really wanna commit to anything so here is any old ending". Yet again we are left to fill in the gaps.
I want him to just be like this is the ending! Not umm here is the ending but you make up your own mind.
Also I have no issue with ambiguous but there is a difference between ambiguous and things that really just dont make sense.
its like the silence they were a religion not a being, or a race, then we are told they are going to be killed off, then they come back and help the doctor in the next series.
It's like Midnight, the sort of episode that you never know if there was a bad guy or not and that is what makes it good :P
But there was something there. Ambiguity normally works when you see it through the eyes of an unreliable main character. Some whose state of mind makes you as the audience think "was there actually anything?". The difference is here is that you have 3 sane characters experiencing a clearly sinister act. There's no ambiguity. That **** happened.
And if it was a kid playing a prank then I have no words. I mean thats stupid.
I know the point is you arent meant to know but that just raises too many questions and not the good kind.
But there was something there. Ambiguity normally works when you see it through the eyes of an unreliable main character. Some whose state of mind makes you as the audience think "was there actually anything?". The difference is here is that you have 3 sane characters experiencing a clearly sinister act. There's no ambiguity. That **** happened.
And if it was a kid playing a prank then I have no words.
I know the point is you arent meant to know but that just raises too many questions and not the good kind.
If I heard one of my siblings/friends being scared of what was under the bed or something along the lines of the Clara/Rupert discussion then I would 10000% freak them out by hiding under a cover on their bed.
Why is that so difficult to believe?
They all think there's something there because they expect there to be, same with the audience.
I got the point. I just didn't like it and I think I've figured out why .I think that my issue is that f this had been a one off occasion where it is left ambiguous I'd be like okay that's fine.
However with Moffat everything is ambiguous! Look at S5 we start off with a clear simple storyline. But in the end we are left with more questions than answers. Then S6 pretty much ignores all those questions so we get an S6 finale that not only negates the unfinished plot of S5 but raises more unanswered question from S6 itself.
Then in S7 we get essentially an entirely new story that abandons the previous 2 series for a new storyline with Clara. A storyline which itself raises questions which the 50th just sort of glazes over. And then we get the final Smith episode and goes back to answer the question of S5 and S6 in such an incredibly rushed way.
Basically after adoring S5 and most of S6 (up to the finale) Moffat hasn't ever really commited to one story. It's never here is my beginning, here is the journey of the story, here is the ending. Say what you will about the RTD era his series were always wrapped up, With Moffat every answer raises two more questions. Every now and again it is fine but when you do it again and again it just shows me IMO that you dont actually know where the hell you are going and instead just making it up.
And that was really apparent to me in Listen. We get the great opening which Moffat is good at. Good concept and creepiness which he is good at. Then the ending is like "ehhhh I dont really wanna commit to anything so here is any old ending". Yet again we are left to fill in the gaps.
I want him to just be like this is the ending! Not umm here is the ending but you make up your own mind.
Also I have no issue with ambiguous but there is a difference between ambiguous and things that really just dont make sense.
Could I ask a favour..watch the episode again...I think perhaps you expecting answers at the end has coloured your perception a bit. Now you know you aren't going to get them it might be a whole different experience.
Firstly, Listen is deliberately ambiguous and the way it is written isn't as sprawling and elaborate as his arcs. It shouldn't be put into that context at all.
As for ending it, it would completely ruin the context of the episode to give a definitive: YES there was a monster and you should all be scared of it. Because what that monster wants and how it operates would all have to be explained and simply there is no answer to that.
And this, really is the key point of this spiel. THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE WAY OF SAYING NO. You can't say that there is no monster and that is where the ambiguity stems from. We didn't see a monster at any point, we saw a series of events with rational explanations that were all explained and we, the audience ASSUMED that there was a monster, purely because the Doctor did. There is no make up your mind, the Moff told us that there was no monster and we're all sat here like: shit what if there was, because we can't disprove the idea. And that's exactly what he wants :P
But I just changed my argument. I can put Listen in with his arcs as Im talking about his overall approach to writing whether it being a long arc or just a standalone. I'm not annoyed about the fact Listen was ambiguous. I thought I was I admit that but I no longer think that.
My issue is that it was yet another storyline by Moffat where instead of giving a satisfying end it's just here make up your own mind. I just want a storyline from him that has a beginning, middle and end. Look at Blink. We still talk about it today but it isn't like it had unanswered questions. It was just a solid story with a decent end. It just seemed like another episode where concept overtook story to me. He doesn't do it all the time. But he does it enough to become annoying now to me. For example I am 99% sure whatever this Missy storyline is wont ever be 100% revealed. There will always be an unanswered question.
Loved it until the last five minutes. I was looking for a better explanation than I got...maybe in a future episode?
I felt the same about Hide last year, except in that case it was the last 30 seconds rather than the last 5 minutes.
It's amazing how you can totally ruin the tone of an episode in so little time.
Could I ask a favour..watch the episode again...I think perhaps you expecting answers at the end has coloured your perception a bit. Now you know you aren't going to get them it might be a whole different experience.
I watched it when it leaked and tonight Still the same. I dunno the ending just didnt sit right with me.
The main thing is the whole thing about the thing on the bed. I already said in another thread but I'll repeat it here ambiguity really only works when it's based around one or two mentally screwed up characters, like in Inception. You know the character is all over the place mentally through all the dreams he's been in it makes you second guess everything you've seen.
Like the opening of Listen the ambiguity works because you know The Doctor is screwed up by it so he wouldn't be thinking on the same wavelength as somebody else. You buy that he wrote "Listen" on the board without realising cause you know this is affecting him.
With the bed scene you have three characters 2 of which merely creeped out but not to the effect of The Doctor. So that's 3 people who all have the same experience who if asked after would all give the same details. So that means something was there. You cant really make it ambiguous because that happened. It's not in their heads.
Comments
I'll have to think about that one.....;-)
true
didn't know if she was talking to the doctor or danny or rupert or a sibling or an older younger generation, and why did it have to be related to the war doctor, still the loved the episode in general though
I was wondering how others were to react, 'cause I too was sat there thinking it was one of the best episodes made. It just had everything, topped off with amazing performances.
Capaldi has absolutely settled in to be a quite spectacular doctor already in my book, he switches between terrifying and stupidly funny very quickly and it's quite a talent.
Well done Steven Moffat!
I got the point. I just didn't like it and I think I've figured out why .I think that my issue is that f this had been a one off occasion where it is left ambiguous I'd be like okay that's fine.
However with Moffat everything is ambiguous! Look at S5 we start off with a clear simple storyline. But in the end we are left with more questions than answers. Then S6 pretty much ignores all those questions so we get an S6 finale that not only negates the unfinished plot of S5 but raises more unanswered question from S6 itself.
Then in S7 we get essentially an entirely new story that abandons the previous 2 series for a new storyline with Clara. A storyline which itself raises questions which the 50th just sort of glazes over. And then we get the final Smith episode and goes back to answer the question of S5 and S6 in such an incredibly rushed way.
Basically after adoring S5 and most of S6 (up to the finale) Moffat hasn't ever really commited to one story. It's never here is my beginning, here is the journey of the story, here is the ending. Say what you will about the RTD era his series were always wrapped up, With Moffat every answer raises two more questions. Every now and again it is fine but when you do it again and again it just shows me IMO that you dont actually know where the hell you are going and instead just making it up.
And that was really apparent to me in Listen. We get the great opening which Moffat is good at. Good concept and creepiness which he is good at. Then the ending is like "ehhhh I dont really wanna commit to anything so here is any old ending". Yet again we are left to fill in the gaps.
I want him to just be like this is the ending! Not umm here is the ending but you make up your own mind.
Also I have no issue with ambiguous but there is a difference between ambiguous and things that really just dont make sense.
To be fair, you should have alerted the thread and had it stickied when it was started. Then you should have alerted the mods again and asked for the poll to be added immediately the episode ended, not wait more than an hour before doing so.
Excellent.
That is easy. She was telling the child who grew to become the Doctor that one day he would return to that same barn .... and he did. As the War Doctor.
I think the boy-Doctor was in some sort of a boarding school - the woman who came to the barn looking for him was wearing a skirt and apron as worn by a school nurse or Matron, and the man with her was a little head-teacher-y to me..
This would tie in nicely with Rupert's experience in the children's home - both little boys living an institutionalised life, and heartened by the same words.
I have several points to this.
Firstly, Listen is deliberately ambiguous and the way it is written isn't as sprawling and elaborate as his arcs. It shouldn't be put into that context at all.
As for ending it, it would completely ruin the context of the episode to give a definitive: YES there was a monster and you should all be scared of it. Because what that monster wants and how it operates would all have to be explained and simply there is no answer to that.
And this, really is the key point of this spiel. THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE WAY OF SAYING NO. You can't say that there is no monster and that is where the ambiguity stems from. We didn't see a monster at any point, we saw a series of events with rational explanations that were all explained and we, the audience ASSUMED that there was a monster, purely because the Doctor did. There is no make up your mind, the Moff told us that there was no monster and we're all sat here like: shit what if there was, because we can't disprove the idea. And that's exactly what he wants :P
Paul Mcgann, only way into the series
its like the silence they were a religion not a being, or a race, then we are told they are going to be killed off, then they come back and help the doctor in the next series.
weird
A fantastic quote, CD. Thanks for that. Another reason I love Moffat right now.
But there was something there. Ambiguity normally works when you see it through the eyes of an unreliable main character. Some whose state of mind makes you as the audience think "was there actually anything?". The difference is here is that you have 3 sane characters experiencing a clearly sinister act. There's no ambiguity. That **** happened.
And if it was a kid playing a prank then I have no words. I mean thats stupid.
I know the point is you arent meant to know but that just raises too many questions and not the good kind.
If I heard one of my siblings/friends being scared of what was under the bed or something along the lines of the Clara/Rupert discussion then I would 10000% freak them out by hiding under a cover on their bed.
Why is that so difficult to believe?
They all think there's something there because they expect there to be, same with the audience.
Could I ask a favour..watch the episode again...I think perhaps you expecting answers at the end has coloured your perception a bit. Now you know you aren't going to get them it might be a whole different experience.
No, it was Peter Davison, having another go after hiding under a sheet!
But I just changed my argument. I can put Listen in with his arcs as Im talking about his overall approach to writing whether it being a long arc or just a standalone. I'm not annoyed about the fact Listen was ambiguous. I thought I was I admit that but I no longer think that.
My issue is that it was yet another storyline by Moffat where instead of giving a satisfying end it's just here make up your own mind. I just want a storyline from him that has a beginning, middle and end. Look at Blink. We still talk about it today but it isn't like it had unanswered questions. It was just a solid story with a decent end. It just seemed like another episode where concept overtook story to me. He doesn't do it all the time. But he does it enough to become annoying now to me. For example I am 99% sure whatever this Missy storyline is wont ever be 100% revealed. There will always be an unanswered question.
I felt the same about Hide last year, except in that case it was the last 30 seconds rather than the last 5 minutes.
It's amazing how you can totally ruin the tone of an episode in so little time.
Loved all of Listen though.
I think they are just overcome with awe !!!
I watched it when it leaked and tonight
The main thing is the whole thing about the thing on the bed. I already said in another thread but I'll repeat it here ambiguity really only works when it's based around one or two mentally screwed up characters, like in Inception. You know the character is all over the place mentally through all the dreams he's been in it makes you second guess everything you've seen.
Like the opening of Listen the ambiguity works because you know The Doctor is screwed up by it so he wouldn't be thinking on the same wavelength as somebody else. You buy that he wrote "Listen" on the board without realising cause you know this is affecting him.
With the bed scene you have three characters 2 of which merely creeped out but not to the effect of The Doctor. So that's 3 people who all have the same experience who if asked after would all give the same details. So that means something was there. You cant really make it ambiguous because that happened. It's not in their heads.