I think Hans Gruber's actions are very clearly laid out. So that is a weird example.
Even if you think his plans are clearly laid out his behaviour, actions and motiviation are often characterised more by the need to create a memorable and entertaining villain than just mere tedious practicality. There are moments in Die Hard where drama and action and comic book brilliance are embraced at the expense of logic. Which is as it should be. Does anyone watch this sort of thing for documentary realism? No. And the result? Classic villain. Classic film.
In the same way as Bond is a brilliant fictional hero but a lousy secret agent.
I tend to tune out when people start nitpicking or expecting everything to be laboriously explained on screen as I think such things are the enemy of science fiction.
If death in Doctor Who is too cliche, we're all in trouble.
Lets be honest - she was invented to spout fan service, nothing more. Lynda with a Y had more potential.
Osgood had some potential for the following reasons.
Ingrid Oliver who plays her is a good actress.
Look at her in Peep Show as the butch Tomboy rapist Natalie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtxK7wNUBPk you wouldn't even think that was the same person. I mean she doesn't even look like the same person as Osgood. Ingrid Oliver has far more range than Michelle ham it up for all time Gomez who plays the same role in everything she has ever been in.
Also I think Kate and Osgood could have been a new UNIT family. Everyone keeps going on about how much they want a female Doctor or female Master.
Those are bad ideas IMO but a female UNIT family could be quite a neat idea. UNIT in the old series was very much a man's man's organisation so to have a new UNIT family with two intelligent female characters would be an excellent change of dynamic.
Also Kate and Osgood are the only two new UNIT characters who could have been popular with the fans. The female Brig in Battlefield was despised, Malcolm Taylor was forgotten about and attempts at marrying Martha Jones to UNIT weren't exactly popular.
However Osgood and Kate went down very well so they could become a new UNIT family and it would be made up of women.
Obviously you would have to do away the silly fan avatar nonsense and make Osgood stronger, but do that and yes Osgood and Kate could have become brilliant characters. However they botched that of course by killing Osgood all for that stupid clown Missy (Missy is far more fan pandering than Osgood. Missy is pandering to the fans who wouldn't shut up about a female Doctor) and Kate they have made boring as hell. All she ever does is just say "my dad was great".
I do agree that Osgood was initially just nothing more than a fan avatar and I HATE fan avatars. I have written about why I think they are crap here http://t.co/MWPzHkJDRo its not just Doctor Who that's guilty of that. Supernatural is the worst offender for fan avatars.
Lets be honest - she was invented to spout fan service, nothing more. Lynda with a Y had more potential.
I don't get the love for Osgood whatsoever. Total non-character really. Not a bad actress, but barely anything to work with. Fawning over the Doctor, wearing the Doctor's clothes, and puffing on an inhaler. Not enough time to really invest in her either. So her death was a total *shrug* moment for me.
Even if you think his plans are clearly laid out his behaviour, actions and motiviation are often characterised more by the need to create a memorable and entertaining villain than just mere tedious practicality. There are moments in Die Hard where drama and action and comic book brilliance are embraced at the expense of logic. Which is as it should be. Does anyone watch this sort of thing for documentary realism? No. And the result? Classic villain. Classic film.
In the same way as Bond is a brilliant fictional hero but a lousy secret agent.
I tend to tune out when people start nitpicking or expecting everything to be laboriously explained on screen as I think such things are the enemy of science fiction.
I'm not sure if that last line is meant for me but all I.dud was comment on your point that
"Do we ask Hans Gruber why <he> does what <he> does in the way that <he does>?"
And I says that's not a good example because he does what he does because he is an exceptional thief. He terrorises the people to get the FBI involved to cut the power and so he can escape in the mayhem.
There are no questions to ask in the way home dies it. Unless your point is "why does he want to steal rather than set up a pet sanctuary or something".
Although I guess he was going to kill all those people on the roof which is quite evil.
I guess now I've thought about your point I can ascertain what I think your saying. You were talking about overall motivation not actions. So that to me was unclear. So I stand by my point somewhat that hands Gruber isn't a good example as he famously had a complex well laid out plan. By mentioning 'the way he does it" you make your point less clear.
"Do we ask Hans Gruber why <he> does what <he> does in the way that <he does>?"
You mean, the odd but endearing way he says "clop", a split-second after all of his comrades have shouted "Heil Hitler"?
I believe there are profound psychological reasons for that. ...oh, wait. That's Hans Geering, not Gruber. Sorry.
I don't get the Osgood love either, by the way. I actually laughed when she was vapourised
You mean, the odd but endearing way he says "clop", a split-second after all of his comrades have shouted "Heil Hitler"?
I believe there are profound psychological reasons for that. ...oh, wait. That's Hans Geering, not Gruber. Sorry.
I don't get the Osgood love either, by the way. I actually laughed when she was vapourised
I always assumed he was saying "'tler'" in his funny German accent. Having always been late in starting the "Heil Hitler", thus ending the last syllable after all had already finished...
I always assumed he was saying "'tler'" in his funny German accent. Having always been late in starting the "Heil Hitler", thus ending the last syllable after all had already finished...
That's exactly what it was, "'tler". Spot on.
It was fairly evident that the character was uncomfortable with saying the actual words, though. Speaking only the last syllable was as close as he could safely get to not saying anything at all.
(As a nipper, I was embarrassed about saying "thank you", which more often than not became "'kew" - hardly comparable, but I could see where he was coming from.)
I always thought it was "clop" too! But yeah, it's what the Prof said. Of course Gruber ended up fighting the good fight against 'Tler.
Sam Kelly was great, bless him. Shame we never saw him on TV Who.
He certainly was and you're right, it's to our loss that Sam didn't get more TV exposure in general. I could easily have imagined him playing a part like Perkins in "Mummy on the Orient Express". (Not that there was anything wrong with Frank Skinner's portrayal, mind.)
Capaldi will only 'own' the show when they get rid of Clara who I find totally infuriating.
I'm sick to death of her chastising him. I can't wait for her to leave and want a companion who doesn't act like they are superior to the doctor. He should be in control not her.
He's amazing, brilliantly layered, But I fear Moffat will make him into a combo Smith/tennant clone in Series 9.
After the fuss the Matt Smith fans made about the doc not being young and silly anymore, it wouldn't surprise me.
David Tennant was a great doctor (my second favorite), but I really like Peter Capaldi too.
I doubt the show would be as bad as it was when Matt Smith was in charge, but I will be disappointed if they make big changes to Twelve's personality. He's my favorite incarnation, and I think he's perfect just the way he is.
Capaldi will only 'own' the show when they get rid of Clara who I find totally infuriating.
I'm sick to death of her chastising him. I can't wait for her to leave and want a companion who doesn't act like they are superior to the doctor. He should be in control not her.
Just because you don't like Clara doesn't mean Capaldi doesn't 'own' the show for others. Personally I'd prefer a companion that calls the doctor out on his arsehole behaviour rather than one that follows him around like a lovesick puppy accepting everything he says and does.
To be fair to Clara she is not the only one to tell the doctor off. 11 was called up on behaviour by Amy, Rory and even his wife River. Just because you love someone it doesn't men you don't have the right to disagree with them. Or you have to put up with things that are not nice. Clara should tell him off if or when he needs it in S9.
To be fair to Clara she is not the only one to tell the doctor off. 11 was called up on behaviour by Amy, Rory and even his wife River. Just because you love someone it doesn't men you don't have the right to disagree with them. Or you have to put up with things that are not nice. Clara should tell him off if or when he needs it in S9.
That's the function of all the companions - to reign in the Doctor's alien excesses. Donna certainly took no nonsense from 10 whilst, back in the very first NuWho episode Rose keep berating 9 for continually forgetting about Mickey when she thought he was dead.
Rewatching last year's series I am now realising how much affection the Doctor and Clara have for each other. When Clara told the Doctor in Mummy that she'd changed her mind and would continue to travel with him after all was child-like and delightful. I love the relationship these two characters have with each other and the squabbling and berating is a big part of it.
Just because you don't like Clara doesn't mean Capaldi doesn't 'own' the show for others. Personally I'd prefer a companion that calls the doctor out on his arsehole behaviour rather than one that follows him around like a lovesick puppy accepting everything he says and does.
I didn't say that I wanted a lovesick puppy, just that I wish they would stop favouring Clara over the Doctor in the writing. The Doctor should not be 'acting like an arsehole' in my view, he should be better than that. Capaldi is currently playing second fiddle to a bossy school teacher which i find annoying.
I didn't say that I wanted a lovesick puppy, just that I wish they would stop favouring Clara over the Doctor in the writing. The Doctor should not be 'acting like an arsehole' in my view, he should be better than that. Capaldi is currently playing second fiddle to a bossy school teacher which i find annoying.
This is a row I feel like I had endlessly when the series was on. I realise it's all down to personal preference, but that is the kind of logic that is very rarely welcome on these forums. I don't think the doctor should be 'above' acting badly, and he certainly shouldn't be above being corrected or called out. That's what it was like during the end of DT's tenure. We had the doctor turning into bloody Jesus and it was incredibly annoying. I'm happy for the doctor and the companion to be shown in equal measure. I will say though that the companion taking centre stage really isn't a new thing.
I'm reflecting on the two Doctors who fall under Steven Moffett's tenure as showrunner and what they have in common.
Series 5 (Matt Smith's first series) was very much Amy Pond's story.
Series 8 (Peter's first series) - Clara has a story arc, but the Doctor doesn't.
So starting each Doctor off with a companion-lead story arc.
Maybe the problem last year was that, if you look at Clara's time with Matt Smith, it seems that Moffett didn't know what to do with her. All he had was his Impossible Girl idea.
Last year he found soething to do with her, he put some meat on the bones but, yes, possible at the expense of an slightly underused Doctor.
I'm thinking that next series it will be a Doctor story arc, but that's based only on rumours of what might be rather than anything concrete. It's also difficult to think what sort of story arc he could give Clara if she is travelling full-time with the Doctor. The title of the first episode "The Magician's Apprentice" suggests a bit of Doctor/Clara bonding but that's only based on the title.
This is a row I feel like I had endlessly when the series was on. I realise it's all down to personal preference, but that is the kind of logic that is very rarely welcome on these forums. I don't think the doctor should be 'above' acting badly, and he certainly shouldn't be above being corrected or called out. .
Quite right. It certainly didn't hurt the First Doctor-Ian-Barbara dynamic. The First Doctor behaved like a real arse sometimes and (schoolteacher) Barbara challenged him. I like that vibe with the current Doctor and Clara. Equally, I loved the Third Doctor's testiness, particularly with politicians.
This is a row I feel like I had endlessly when the series was on. I realise it's all down to personal preference, but that is the kind of logic that is very rarely welcome on these forums. I don't think the doctor should be 'above' acting badly, and he certainly shouldn't be above being corrected or called out. That's what it was like during the end of DT's tenure. We had the doctor turning into bloody Jesus and it was incredibly annoying. I'm happy for the doctor and the companion to be shown in equal measure. I will say though that the companion taking centre stage really isn't a new thing.
I'd like to take issue with the bit in bold. I've watched Dr Who for a very long time and consider that I have just as much right to give my opinion as anyone else on this forum. If you don't agree that's fine, but don't assume that you speak for everyone else.
The Doctor is not infallible and does make mistakes BUT he is supposed to be 1,000 years old and from an advanced race far ahead of us. His superior knowledge and compassion in finding resolutions to problems is the crux of the show. He should not be playing second fiddle to anyone. It's fine for the companions to have a view and to challenge him with different ideas but I don't agree that its OK for the doctor to 'act like an arse' and for Clara to be continually correcting him. There is a subtle difference.
I'd like to take issue with the bit in bold. I've watched Dr Who for a very long time and consider that I have just as much right to give my opinion as anyone else on this forum. If you don't agree that's fine, but don't assume that you speak for everyone else.
The Doctor is not infallible and does make mistakes BUT he is supposed to be 1,000 years old and from an advanced race far ahead of us. His superior knowledge and compassion in finding resolutions to problems is the crux of the show. He should not be playing second fiddle to anyone. It's fine for the companions to have a view and to challenge him with different ideas but I don't agree that its OK for the doctor to 'act like an arse' and for Clara to be continually correcting him. There is a subtle difference.
You should watch the beach scene at the end of Mummy On The Orient Express when the Doctor is explaining to Clara that life isn't always black and white and sometimes difficult choices have to be made. And Clara clearly accepts that he was right and she was wrong. It's a scene which says "the Doctor is wiser than Clara".
Also, in the volcano scene in Dark Water, it's Clara who behaves like an arse (but the Doctor forgives her because she's grieving.) and she's outmanoeuvred by the Doctor in another scene that shows he's wiser and cleverer than her.
I'd like to take issue with the bit in bold. I've watched Dr Who for a very long time and consider that I have just as much right to give my opinion as anyone else on this forum. If you don't agree that's fine, but don't assume that you speak for everyone else.
The Doctor is not infallible and does make mistakes BUT he is supposed to be 1,000 years old and from an advanced race far ahead of us. His superior knowledge and compassion in finding resolutions to problems is the crux of the show. He should not be playing second fiddle to anyone. It's fine for the companions to have a view and to challenge him with different ideas but I don't agree that its OK for the doctor to 'act like an arse' and for Clara to be continually correcting him. There is a subtle difference.
So it's ok that I don't agree while you go ahead and list the reasons why I'm wrong? How does that work?
I also didn't claim to 'speak for everyone else'. I said my logic wasn't appreciated on this forum. You pretty much proved my point.
Comments
Even if you think his plans are clearly laid out his behaviour, actions and motiviation are often characterised more by the need to create a memorable and entertaining villain than just mere tedious practicality. There are moments in Die Hard where drama and action and comic book brilliance are embraced at the expense of logic. Which is as it should be. Does anyone watch this sort of thing for documentary realism? No. And the result? Classic villain. Classic film.
In the same way as Bond is a brilliant fictional hero but a lousy secret agent.
I tend to tune out when people start nitpicking or expecting everything to be laboriously explained on screen as I think such things are the enemy of science fiction.
Ingrid Oliver who plays her is a good actress.
Look at her in Peep Show as the butch Tomboy rapist Natalie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtxK7wNUBPk you wouldn't even think that was the same person. I mean she doesn't even look like the same person as Osgood. Ingrid Oliver has far more range than Michelle ham it up for all time Gomez who plays the same role in everything she has ever been in.
Also I think Kate and Osgood could have been a new UNIT family. Everyone keeps going on about how much they want a female Doctor or female Master.
Those are bad ideas IMO but a female UNIT family could be quite a neat idea. UNIT in the old series was very much a man's man's organisation so to have a new UNIT family with two intelligent female characters would be an excellent change of dynamic.
Also Kate and Osgood are the only two new UNIT characters who could have been popular with the fans. The female Brig in Battlefield was despised, Malcolm Taylor was forgotten about and attempts at marrying Martha Jones to UNIT weren't exactly popular.
However Osgood and Kate went down very well so they could become a new UNIT family and it would be made up of women.
Obviously you would have to do away the silly fan avatar nonsense and make Osgood stronger, but do that and yes Osgood and Kate could have become brilliant characters. However they botched that of course by killing Osgood all for that stupid clown Missy (Missy is far more fan pandering than Osgood. Missy is pandering to the fans who wouldn't shut up about a female Doctor) and Kate they have made boring as hell. All she ever does is just say "my dad was great".
I do agree that Osgood was initially just nothing more than a fan avatar and I HATE fan avatars. I have written about why I think they are crap here http://t.co/MWPzHkJDRo its not just Doctor Who that's guilty of that. Supernatural is the worst offender for fan avatars.
I don't get the love for Osgood whatsoever. Total non-character really. Not a bad actress, but barely anything to work with. Fawning over the Doctor, wearing the Doctor's clothes, and puffing on an inhaler. Not enough time to really invest in her either. So her death was a total *shrug* moment for me.
I'm not sure if that last line is meant for me but all I.dud was comment on your point that
"Do we ask Hans Gruber why <he> does what <he> does in the way that <he does>?"
And I says that's not a good example because he does what he does because he is an exceptional thief. He terrorises the people to get the FBI involved to cut the power and so he can escape in the mayhem.
There are no questions to ask in the way home dies it. Unless your point is "why does he want to steal rather than set up a pet sanctuary or something".
Although I guess he was going to kill all those people on the roof which is quite evil.
I guess now I've thought about your point I can ascertain what I think your saying. You were talking about overall motivation not actions. So that to me was unclear. So I stand by my point somewhat that hands Gruber isn't a good example as he famously had a complex well laid out plan. By mentioning 'the way he does it" you make your point less clear.
You mean, the odd but endearing way he says "clop", a split-second after all of his comrades have shouted "Heil Hitler"?
I believe there are profound psychological reasons for that. ...oh, wait. That's Hans Geering, not Gruber. Sorry.
I don't get the Osgood love either, by the way. I actually laughed when she was vapourised
I always assumed he was saying "'tler'" in his funny German accent. Having always been late in starting the "Heil Hitler", thus ending the last syllable after all had already finished...
That's exactly what it was, "'tler". Spot on.
It was fairly evident that the character was uncomfortable with saying the actual words, though. Speaking only the last syllable was as close as he could safely get to not saying anything at all.
(As a nipper, I was embarrassed about saying "thank you", which more often than not became "'kew" - hardly comparable, but I could see where he was coming from.)
Sam Kelly was great, bless him. Shame we never saw him on TV Who.
He certainly was
I'm sick to death of her chastising him. I can't wait for her to leave and want a companion who doesn't act like they are superior to the doctor. He should be in control not her.
After the fuss the Matt Smith fans made about the doc not being young and silly anymore, it wouldn't surprise me.
David Tennant was a great doctor (my second favorite), but I really like Peter Capaldi too.
I doubt the show would be as bad as it was when Matt Smith was in charge, but I will be disappointed if they make big changes to Twelve's personality. He's my favorite incarnation, and I think he's perfect just the way he is.
Just because you don't like Clara doesn't mean Capaldi doesn't 'own' the show for others. Personally I'd prefer a companion that calls the doctor out on his arsehole behaviour rather than one that follows him around like a lovesick puppy accepting everything he says and does.
That's the function of all the companions - to reign in the Doctor's alien excesses. Donna certainly took no nonsense from 10 whilst, back in the very first NuWho episode Rose keep berating 9 for continually forgetting about Mickey when she thought he was dead.
Rewatching last year's series I am now realising how much affection the Doctor and Clara have for each other. When Clara told the Doctor in Mummy that she'd changed her mind and would continue to travel with him after all was child-like and delightful. I love the relationship these two characters have with each other and the squabbling and berating is a big part of it.
I didn't say that I wanted a lovesick puppy, just that I wish they would stop favouring Clara over the Doctor in the writing. The Doctor should not be 'acting like an arsehole' in my view, he should be better than that. Capaldi is currently playing second fiddle to a bossy school teacher which i find annoying.
This is a row I feel like I had endlessly when the series was on. I realise it's all down to personal preference, but that is the kind of logic that is very rarely welcome on these forums. I don't think the doctor should be 'above' acting badly, and he certainly shouldn't be above being corrected or called out. That's what it was like during the end of DT's tenure. We had the doctor turning into bloody Jesus and it was incredibly annoying. I'm happy for the doctor and the companion to be shown in equal measure. I will say though that the companion taking centre stage really isn't a new thing.
Series 5 (Matt Smith's first series) was very much Amy Pond's story.
Series 8 (Peter's first series) - Clara has a story arc, but the Doctor doesn't.
So starting each Doctor off with a companion-lead story arc.
Maybe the problem last year was that, if you look at Clara's time with Matt Smith, it seems that Moffett didn't know what to do with her. All he had was his Impossible Girl idea.
Last year he found soething to do with her, he put some meat on the bones but, yes, possible at the expense of an slightly underused Doctor.
I'm thinking that next series it will be a Doctor story arc, but that's based only on rumours of what might be rather than anything concrete. It's also difficult to think what sort of story arc he could give Clara if she is travelling full-time with the Doctor. The title of the first episode "The Magician's Apprentice" suggests a bit of Doctor/Clara bonding but that's only based on the title.
Quite right. It certainly didn't hurt the First Doctor-Ian-Barbara dynamic. The First Doctor behaved like a real arse sometimes and (schoolteacher) Barbara challenged him. I like that vibe with the current Doctor and Clara. Equally, I loved the Third Doctor's testiness, particularly with politicians.
I'd like to take issue with the bit in bold. I've watched Dr Who for a very long time and consider that I have just as much right to give my opinion as anyone else on this forum. If you don't agree that's fine, but don't assume that you speak for everyone else.
The Doctor is not infallible and does make mistakes BUT he is supposed to be 1,000 years old and from an advanced race far ahead of us. His superior knowledge and compassion in finding resolutions to problems is the crux of the show. He should not be playing second fiddle to anyone. It's fine for the companions to have a view and to challenge him with different ideas but I don't agree that its OK for the doctor to 'act like an arse' and for Clara to be continually correcting him. There is a subtle difference.
You should watch the beach scene at the end of Mummy On The Orient Express when the Doctor is explaining to Clara that life isn't always black and white and sometimes difficult choices have to be made. And Clara clearly accepts that he was right and she was wrong. It's a scene which says "the Doctor is wiser than Clara".
Also, in the volcano scene in Dark Water, it's Clara who behaves like an arse (but the Doctor forgives her because she's grieving.) and she's outmanoeuvred by the Doctor in another scene that shows he's wiser and cleverer than her.
So it's ok that I don't agree while you go ahead and list the reasons why I'm wrong? How does that work?
I also didn't claim to 'speak for everyone else'. I said my logic wasn't appreciated on this forum. You pretty much proved my point.