Yet again you demonstrate your inability to accept differing views to your own. Perhaps you should read the first post and read your own first post. My post was an antidote to the unfounded praise being heaped on this episode. If people want to post threads saying how great an episode is then they shouldn't take offence when people who disagree with their views post contrary opinions.
As I thought you failed to get it. My problem (and I speak only for myself) is that you didnt enter this thread with a reasoned and well argued opinion of why you think the episode was bad. Instead you chose to question the validity of the thread even being started- a ludicrous thing to do.
Anyone could equally say 'I dont like Sarah Jane Smith...why bother making a thread about it?' or apply the same rude ill logic to every thread started on here. But then it wouldn't be a very productive forum.
That you then chose to follow this up with assertions that your opinion was fact and 'common sense' (quite what that even means is beyond me) and habitually smug and dismissive use of :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: in the absence of anything constructive to say means a few people took umbrage to your remarks. Understandably.
Loved TPO & TBB and series 5 as a whole. I was expecting S5 to be very weak with it being the first series with Moffatt as head writer but it turned out to be IMO quite a strong series with only 1 or 2 shoddy episodes. Much prefer S5 finale to the awful finale we witnessed in S6.
But YOU'RE the one who said it was one of the worst episodes in the show's history. That is your opinion, not a fact. You didn't say you didn't like it or it wasn't one of your favourites, you stated it was one of the worst episodes. Saladfingers81 is right.
Well of course it's an opinion - just as it is only the opinions of people who are praising this episode. Every time we post on here we don't need to write "it's my opinion", that's a given.
As I thought you failed to get it. My problem (and I speak only for myself) is that you didnt enter this thread with a reasoned and well argued opinion of why you think the episode was bad. Instead you chose to question the validity of the thread even being started- a ludicrous thing to do.
Anyone could equally say 'I dont like Sarah Jane Smith...why bother making a thread about it?' or apply the same rude ill logic to every thread started on here. But then it wouldn't be a very productive forum.
That you then chose to follow this up with assertions that your opinion was fact and 'common sense' (quite what that even means is beyond me) and habitually smug and dismissive use of :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: in the absence of anything constructive to say means a few people took umbrage to your remarks. Understandably.
Wow, some people are so sensitive. My original post was: "Why a new thread about one of the worst Doctor Who episodes in 50 years?". Hardly earth shattering. A valid question, since there are plenty of other threads about this sad excuse for a Doctor Who episode. And you are the one not getting it - it is common sense that if there are well over 200 stories of Doctor Who that not everyone's favourite episode is going to be the same, and that some stories have got to be near the bottom of people's personal rankings.
Wow, some people are so sensitive. My original post was: "Why a new thread about one of the worst Doctor Who episodes in 50 years?". Hardly earth shattering. A valid question, since there are plenty of other threads about this sad excuse for a Doctor Who episode. And you are the one not getting it - it is common sense that if there are well over 200 stories of Doctor Who that not everyone's favourite episode is going to be the same, and that some stories have got to be near the bottom of people's personal rankings.
Feel free to express your contrary opinions about any and all aspects of Doctor Who. That's what debate in this forum is about, after all, however, in fairness, your original post does come over as rather aggressive and rude.
There are two problems with your original post:
You seem very sure that your opinion is shared by the majority.
But the more severe problem is this:
Your low opinion of that story means you think no one else is entitled to start a new thread to discuss it. So, you appear to be making your opinion more important that anyone else's.
Do you normally walk up to groups of people who are happily discussing something and tell them what they're talking about is so bad they shouldn't be talking about it?
It was not a thread you needed to involve yourself with in that manner. Your subsequent posts reveal no insight on your part as to how you could possibly have offended others.
Well of course it's an opinion - just as it is only the opinions of people who are praising this episode. Every time we post on here we don't need to write "it's my opinion", that's a given.
I'm sorry, you're getting a tad annoying now. You said it was one of the worst episodes, as if it had been rated that or something, not that you thought it was one of the worst. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's one of the worst.
You're like an immature student who tells people something they like is rubbish, often resulting in them getting rather upset.
I'm sorry, you're getting a tad annoying now. You said it was one of the worst episodes, as if it had been rated that or something, not that you thought it was one of the worst. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's one of the worst.
You're like an immature student who tells people something they like is rubbish, often resulting in them getting rather upset.
.... as opposed to you, who merely comments on a thread to insult other posters.
Feel free to express your contrary opinions about any and all aspects of Doctor Who. That's what debate in this forum is about, after all, however, in fairness, your original post does come over as rather aggressive and rude.
There are two problems with your original post:
You seem very sure that your opinion is shared by the majority.
But the more severe problem is this:
Your low opinion of that story means you think no one else is entitled to start a new thread to discuss it. So, you appear to be making your opinion more important that anyone else's.
Do you normally walk up to groups of people who are happily discussing something and tell them what they're talking about is so bad they shouldn't be talking about it?
It was not a thread you needed to involve yourself with in that manner. Your subsequent posts reveal no insight on your part as to how you could possibly have offended others.
You must have lived a very sheltered life if you think that my initial post was aggressive and rude. Good luck in the real world. My view of my opinion is that it is no more or no less important than anyone else's on this forum.
[Snip needless insults]. My view of my opinion is that it is no more or no less important than anyone else's on this forum.
There you go again: Assuming your opinion (in this case, of the real world) is the most valid opinion.
In any case, why contribute to making the world worse than it is?
If you really think your opinion is no more important than anyone else's, then why do you act differently? I'm afraid your actions betray your real opinion of other people's opinions.
There you go again: Assuming your opinion (in this case, of the real world) is the most valid opinion.
In any case, why contribute to making the world worse than it is?
If you really think your opinion is no more important than anyone else's, then why do you act differently? I'm afraid your actions betray your real opinion of other people's opinions.
And you're so arrogant you think you can tell other people what their real opinions are!
Once again your arrogance thinks that you know better than anyone else. Anyway, give it a rest now, if you've got nothing to contribute but insults. How about actually explaining why The Big Bang is so good? I won't hold my breath.
Once again your arrogance thinks that you know better than anyone else. Anyway, give it a rest now, if you've got nothing to contribute but insults. How about actually explaining why The Big Bang is so good? I won't hold my breath.
How about changing the subject when you're backed into a corner?
How about changing the subject when you're backed into a corner?
I have not insulted you once.
Make of that what you will.
I won't make anything of it, your views don't matter to me. I am not backed into a corner and I am not changing the subject. I am still waiting for all these fans of The Big Bang to explain why it's so great, but strangely none of you appear able to.
The Big Bang is great because it's interesting. Since 2005 we'd had four or five series finales that essentially involved someone very suddenly changing the rules and pressing a magic button to resolve what had been set up the week before — Rose turns magical, the void is switched from blow to suck, everybody really really hopes the Doctor will get better, Donna literally presses some buttons, whatever that was meant to be with the magical diamond (though, admittedly, that stuff sort of played out as a McGuffin; the fan bait Timelord stuff turned out to be a sideshow).
Conversely, The Big Bang goes the other way; it's set up specifically to confound expectations. Amy is in the Pandorica. The Doctor dies. Every time the episode seems to have committed itself to a particular narrative, Moffatt throws something new in. The pacing is fantastic and some of the little touches are very smart — the rewind makes us reevaluate our own memories (especially re: the weeping angels episode) before Amy has to do the same. The wedding ceremony at the end is also one of the smarter ways of allowing our heroes to celebrate victory, and certainly a lot less stomach churning than, for example, having the crowds cheer as the Doctor flies by on his magical bus.
As for the science? It lacks credibility, which puts it exactly equal with the previous revived finales. If you like the programme then that's obviously something you can accept. At least this time all of the solutions have been set up throughout the series; the crack, obviously, the quantum-ish* link between observation-by-memory and existence (see, eg, the speech about faces in photos), the way that Amy has been wired in as a result.
* as per light wave/particle experiments — highly approximate laymen's version: focus a beam of light into apparatus that splits it, then adjust the beam so that it's shooting measurable individual particles of light. If you only observe the output then the beam will act like a wave, travelling down both paths at the same time. If you observe the actual particles inside then they can only go one way or the other and the experiment starts showing the beam going down only one path at a time. Passive observation affects the outcome.
Other experiments have shown that suitably 'entangled' particles (ie, they've interacted physically but subsequently been separated, often by hundreds of kilometres) can observe changes in each other's state. Not only does this appear to break causality due to the absence of any known means for that information to travel but it's recently been shown quite genuinely to break causation: the particle that recognises the change in the other can do so before the other has been adjusted.
i really hope a certain person on this thread uses the internet to vent their passive aggressive urges and doesn't behave like that in real life.
and stop changing the goal posts. The only reason this discussion veered off in this direction is because you posted an ignorant comment that offered nothing to the discussion of the episode. It has nothing to do with being sheltered or over sensitive and everything to do with you being ignorant and belligerent in your dealings with other people.
The Big Bang is great because it's interesting. Since 2005 we'd had four or five series finales that essentially involved someone very suddenly changing the rules and pressing a magic button to resolve what had been set up the week before — Rose turns magical, the void is switched from blow to suck, everybody really really hopes the Doctor will get better, Donna literally presses some buttons, whatever that was meant to be with the magical diamond (though, admittedly, that stuff sort of played out as a McGuffin; the fan bait Timelord stuff turned out to be a sideshow).
Conversely, The Big Bang goes the other way; it's set up specifically to confound expectations. Amy is in the Pandorica. The Doctor dies. Every time the episode seems to have committed itself to a particular narrative, Moffatt throws something new in. The pacing is fantastic and some of the little touches are very smart — the rewind makes us reevaluate our own memories (especially re: the weeping angels episode) before Amy has to do the same. The wedding ceremony at the end is also one of the smarter ways of allowing our heroes to celebrate victory, and certainly a lot less stomach churning than, for example, having the crowds cheer as the Doctor flies by on his magical bus.
As for the science? It lacks credibility, which puts it exactly equal with the previous revived finales. If you like the programme then that's obviously something you can accept. At least this time all of the solutions have been set up throughout the series; the crack, obviously, the quantum-ish* link between observation-by-memory and existence (see, eg, the speech about faces in photos), the way that Amy has been wired in as a result.
* as per light wave/particle experiments — highly approximate laymen's version: focus a beam of light into apparatus that splits it, then adjust the beam so that it's shooting measurable individual particles of light. If you only observe the output then the beam will act like a wave, travelling down both paths at the same time. If you observe the actual particles inside then they can only go one way or the other and the experiment starts showing the beam going down only one path at a time. Passive observation affects the outcome.
Other experiments have shown that suitably 'entangled' particles (ie, they've interacted physically but subsequently been separated, often by hundreds of kilometres) can observe changes in each other's state. Not only does this appear to break causality due to the absence of any known means for that information to travel but it's recently been shown quite genuinely to break causation: the particle that recognises the change in the other can do so before the other has been adjusted.
thanks for a brilliant post. I suppose I should have done the same rather than just blindly praising the episode but then my comment was a brief one just after I had watched.
and yeah, I am sure this episode annoys many. But it is nit bad writing. Everything that happens makes sense within the confines of its own story and the resolution was set up throughout S5 so like it or not it makes perfect sense in its own universe. Compare the carefully constructed narrative threaded throughout S5 and the finale to the last minute, nonsensical 'will this do?' drivel of Donnas defeat of the daleks in S4. Now that is bad writing.
i really hope a certain person on this thread uses the internet to vent their passive aggressive urges and doesn't behave like that in real life.
and stop changing the goal posts. The only reason this discussion veered off in this direction is because you posted an ignorant comment that offered nothing to the discussion of the episode. It has nothing to do with being sheltered or over sensitive and everything to do with you being ignorant and belligerent in your dealings with other people.
thanks for a brilliant post. I suppose I should have done the same rather than just blindly praising the episode but then my comment was a brief one just after I had watched.
and yeah, I am sure this episode annoys many. But it is nit bad writing. Everything that happens makes sense within the confines of its own story and the resolution was set up throughout S5 so like it or not it makes perfect sense in its own universe. Compare the carefully constructed narrative threaded throughout S5 and the finale to the last minute, nonsensical 'will this do?' drivel of Donnas defeat of the daleks in S4. Now that is bad writing.
Except it doesn't. Just one random example - how did Amy "remember" The Doctor back into existence? And saying that Series 4's ending was drivel doesn't mean Series 5 wasn't. (Who's moving the goalposts now?) And you can't get more nonsensical "will this do" writing than the lazy way the writer gave for The Doctor escaping the Pandorica. There are countless other faults with this episode, but to list them all I would need to re watch it and I don't want to go through that experience again.
Except it doesn't. Just one random example - how did Amy "remember" The Doctor back into existence? And saying that Series 4's ending was drivel doesn't mean Series 5 wasn't. (Who's moving the goalposts now?) And you can't get more nonsensical "will this do" writing than the lazy way the writer gave for The Doctor escaping the Pandorica. There are countless other faults with this episode, but to list them all I would need to re watch it and I don't want to go through that experience again.
It was clearly set up in the season as a whole and particularly in TPO-witness the doctors speech to Rory about people dropping out of time and leaving traces that totally foreshadowed the eventual resolution and spelled it out quite obviously- that people could be remembered back into existence. So when this happened it made sense within the rules Moffat had laid out.
Compare this to S4. Its like writing a story where the protagonist falls off a cliff at the end and saves themselves by suddenly being able to fly despite no mention of this previously and the story being set in a 'real world' where people cant fly. It makes no dramatic sense and as such is massively unsatisfying.
Its why I prefer the resolution to S3 despite not being a big fan of Jesus Doctor. It still made sense and the seeds for that had been sown throughout the story. It makes for a satisfying pay off.
As for how the doctor escapes the Pandorica I see no problem. Time traveller with friends and a sonic screwdriver uses time travel, a sonic screwdriver and his friends to escape. What's wrong with that? I would like to hear how you think it should have gone...
I should add here that I totally understand why some people hate the 'remembering' solution. I was slightly underwhelmed on first viewing but the more I watch it the more sense it made.
The S5 finale is quite an odd beast for me in that rather than one story cut in two both episodes have their own distinct approach and feel. TPO is a big adventure blockbuster whereas TBB is a smaller scale and more complex episode that after the whizz bang fast paced genius of TPO I found quite odd but it really holds up to repeated viewings.
Comments
As I thought you failed to get it. My problem (and I speak only for myself) is that you didnt enter this thread with a reasoned and well argued opinion of why you think the episode was bad. Instead you chose to question the validity of the thread even being started- a ludicrous thing to do.
Anyone could equally say 'I dont like Sarah Jane Smith...why bother making a thread about it?' or apply the same rude ill logic to every thread started on here. But then it wouldn't be a very productive forum.
That you then chose to follow this up with assertions that your opinion was fact and 'common sense' (quite what that even means is beyond me) and habitually smug and dismissive use of :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: in the absence of anything constructive to say means a few people took umbrage to your remarks. Understandably.
Well of course it's an opinion - just as it is only the opinions of people who are praising this episode. Every time we post on here we don't need to write "it's my opinion", that's a given.
Wow, some people are so sensitive. My original post was: "Why a new thread about one of the worst Doctor Who episodes in 50 years?". Hardly earth shattering. A valid question, since there are plenty of other threads about this sad excuse for a Doctor Who episode. And you are the one not getting it - it is common sense that if there are well over 200 stories of Doctor Who that not everyone's favourite episode is going to be the same, and that some stories have got to be near the bottom of people's personal rankings.
Fair point!
Feel free to express your contrary opinions about any and all aspects of Doctor Who. That's what debate in this forum is about, after all, however, in fairness, your original post does come over as rather aggressive and rude.
There are two problems with your original post:
You seem very sure that your opinion is shared by the majority.
But the more severe problem is this:
Your low opinion of that story means you think no one else is entitled to start a new thread to discuss it. So, you appear to be making your opinion more important that anyone else's.
Do you normally walk up to groups of people who are happily discussing something and tell them what they're talking about is so bad they shouldn't be talking about it?
It was not a thread you needed to involve yourself with in that manner. Your subsequent posts reveal no insight on your part as to how you could possibly have offended others.
I'm sorry, you're getting a tad annoying now. You said it was one of the worst episodes, as if it had been rated that or something, not that you thought it was one of the worst. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's one of the worst.
You're like an immature student who tells people something they like is rubbish, often resulting in them getting rather upset.
.... as opposed to you, who merely comments on a thread to insult other posters.
You must have lived a very sheltered life if you think that my initial post was aggressive and rude. Good luck in the real world. My view of my opinion is that it is no more or no less important than anyone else's on this forum.
There you go again: Assuming your opinion (in this case, of the real world) is the most valid opinion.
In any case, why contribute to making the world worse than it is?
If you really think your opinion is no more important than anyone else's, then why do you act differently? I'm afraid your actions betray your real opinion of other people's opinions.
And you're so arrogant you think you can tell other people what their real opinions are!
Once again, you reveal your true self.
Once again your arrogance thinks that you know better than anyone else. Anyway, give it a rest now, if you've got nothing to contribute but insults. How about actually explaining why The Big Bang is so good? I won't hold my breath.
How about changing the subject when you're backed into a corner?
I have not insulted you once.
Make of that what you will.
I won't make anything of it, your views don't matter to me. I am not backed into a corner and I am not changing the subject. I am still waiting for all these fans of The Big Bang to explain why it's so great, but strangely none of you appear able to.
So I've only commented on this thread to be insulting? I think not.
You are the one who is starting to get a little insulting now. It seems like you're only commenting to wind people up. Stop being pugnacious.
Conversely, The Big Bang goes the other way; it's set up specifically to confound expectations. Amy is in the Pandorica. The Doctor dies. Every time the episode seems to have committed itself to a particular narrative, Moffatt throws something new in. The pacing is fantastic and some of the little touches are very smart — the rewind makes us reevaluate our own memories (especially re: the weeping angels episode) before Amy has to do the same. The wedding ceremony at the end is also one of the smarter ways of allowing our heroes to celebrate victory, and certainly a lot less stomach churning than, for example, having the crowds cheer as the Doctor flies by on his magical bus.
As for the science? It lacks credibility, which puts it exactly equal with the previous revived finales. If you like the programme then that's obviously something you can accept. At least this time all of the solutions have been set up throughout the series; the crack, obviously, the quantum-ish* link between observation-by-memory and existence (see, eg, the speech about faces in photos), the way that Amy has been wired in as a result.
* as per light wave/particle experiments — highly approximate laymen's version: focus a beam of light into apparatus that splits it, then adjust the beam so that it's shooting measurable individual particles of light. If you only observe the output then the beam will act like a wave, travelling down both paths at the same time. If you observe the actual particles inside then they can only go one way or the other and the experiment starts showing the beam going down only one path at a time. Passive observation affects the outcome.
Other experiments have shown that suitably 'entangled' particles (ie, they've interacted physically but subsequently been separated, often by hundreds of kilometres) can observe changes in each other's state. Not only does this appear to break causality due to the absence of any known means for that information to travel but it's recently been shown quite genuinely to break causation: the particle that recognises the change in the other can do so before the other has been adjusted.
and stop changing the goal posts. The only reason this discussion veered off in this direction is because you posted an ignorant comment that offered nothing to the discussion of the episode. It has nothing to do with being sheltered or over sensitive and everything to do with you being ignorant and belligerent in your dealings with other people.
thanks for a brilliant post. I suppose I should have done the same rather than just blindly praising the episode but then my comment was a brief one just after I had watched.
and yeah, I am sure this episode annoys many. But it is nit bad writing. Everything that happens makes sense within the confines of its own story and the resolution was set up throughout S5 so like it or not it makes perfect sense in its own universe. Compare the carefully constructed narrative threaded throughout S5 and the finale to the last minute, nonsensical 'will this do?' drivel of Donnas defeat of the daleks in S4. Now that is bad writing.
Yeah, whatever. :rolleyes:
Except it doesn't. Just one random example - how did Amy "remember" The Doctor back into existence? And saying that Series 4's ending was drivel doesn't mean Series 5 wasn't. (Who's moving the goalposts now?) And you can't get more nonsensical "will this do" writing than the lazy way the writer gave for The Doctor escaping the Pandorica. There are countless other faults with this episode, but to list them all I would need to re watch it and I don't want to go through that experience again.
It was clearly set up in the season as a whole and particularly in TPO-witness the doctors speech to Rory about people dropping out of time and leaving traces that totally foreshadowed the eventual resolution and spelled it out quite obviously- that people could be remembered back into existence. So when this happened it made sense within the rules Moffat had laid out.
Compare this to S4. Its like writing a story where the protagonist falls off a cliff at the end and saves themselves by suddenly being able to fly despite no mention of this previously and the story being set in a 'real world' where people cant fly. It makes no dramatic sense and as such is massively unsatisfying.
Its why I prefer the resolution to S3 despite not being a big fan of Jesus Doctor. It still made sense and the seeds for that had been sown throughout the story. It makes for a satisfying pay off.
As for how the doctor escapes the Pandorica I see no problem. Time traveller with friends and a sonic screwdriver uses time travel, a sonic screwdriver and his friends to escape. What's wrong with that? I would like to hear how you think it should have gone...
The S5 finale is quite an odd beast for me in that rather than one story cut in two both episodes have their own distinct approach and feel. TPO is a big adventure blockbuster whereas TBB is a smaller scale and more complex episode that after the whizz bang fast paced genius of TPO I found quite odd but it really holds up to repeated viewings.