Rather like with Star Trek 1/2 (Abrams ghastly fan-fiction mash-up) there is little point pointing out the poor quality of the writing on display in the last series of Dr Who.
The flash and wizzy-wizz is seemingly distracting people from the real-world dross that is the writing nowadays.
And yet series 5/6 were not bad at all, maybe somewhat lacking in grown-up emotion but still generally well-written.
Series 7 is poorly written. It's perplexing really.
I have been watching Doctor Who since November 23d 1963 as I may have somewhat annoyingly mentioned now and again in this forum , and my opinion of current Who is this
**coughs self importantly**
Moffat is brilliant writer, as was RTD before him. Series 7 has been excellent on the whole. The series finale on Saturday was one of the very best Doctor Who episodes I have ever, ever seen, in all my 50 years of being a fan.
I loved seeing all the Classic era Doctors and especially the scene with Hartnell, which I had not dreamed we would get. It was magic.
I also had no difficulty in understanding Clara's role, which was to restore the status quo after the GI had buggered it up.
I have been watching Doctor Who since November 23d 1963 as I may have somewhat annoyingly mentioned now and again in this forum , and my opinion of current Who is this
**coughs self importantly**
Moffat is brilliant writer, as was RTD before him. Series 7 has been excellent on the whole. The series finale on Saturday was one of the very best Doctor Who episodes I have ever, ever seen, in all my 50 years of being a fan.
I loved seeing all the Classic era Doctors and especially the scene with Hartnell, which I had not dreamed we would get. It was magic.
I also had no difficulty in understanding Clara's role, which was to restore the status quo after the GI had buggered it up.
(I like the new Star Trek, too. )
Brilliant answer Granny and I agree with all you say, but I don't realy know what Clara actually did to stop the G.I. All you see is her at the same location as the previous Doctor's and with the exception of Doc 1 she doesnt seem to actually do anything.
Brilliant answer Granny and I agree with all you say, but I don't realy know what Clara actually did to stop the G.I. All you see is her at the same location as the previous Doctor's and with the exception of Doc 1 she doesnt seem to actually do anything.
I suppose there wasn't time (or money) to show all her interactions with all the Doctors. I took it as a Turn Left type scenario - either by a word or an action she made the Doctor take the path he originally had taken. As Donna in Turn Left was unaware that the alternative Donna had sacrificed herself in order to get things back on track, then the various Doctors were probably unaware of her presence.
Rather like with Star Trek 1/2 (Abrams ghastly fan-fiction mash-up) there is little point pointing out the poor quality of the writing on display in the last series of Dr Who.
The flash and wizzy-wizz is seemingly distracting people from the real-world dross that is the writing nowadays.
And yet series 5/6 were not bad at all, maybe somewhat lacking in grown-up emotion but still generally well-written.
Series 7 is poorly written. It's perplexing really.
I'm not sure what is so perplexing about different people liking different things. Good or bad writing is rather subjective.
Now if you don't mind. I've just seen something bright and shiny in the corner of the room, which is probably going to distract me from finishing what I was...
I have been watching Doctor Who since November 23d 1963 as I may have somewhat annoyingly mentioned now and again in this forum , and my opinion of current Who is this
**coughs self importantly**
Moffat is brilliant writer, as was RTD before him. Series 7 has been excellent on the whole. The series finale on Saturday was one of the very best Doctor Who episodes I have ever, ever seen, in all my 50 years of being a fan.
I loved seeing all the Classic era Doctors and especially the scene with Hartnell, which I had not dreamed we would get. It was magic.
I also had no difficulty in understanding Clara's role, which was to restore the status quo after the GI had buggered it up.
I didn't think this was tinkering with the past or meddling with the past, I saw it as a way to briefly include all the past Doctor's and celebrate the show's 50 year history as part of a storyline. Clara didn't change anything, she just ensured that it happened as it did by stopping the Great Intelligence.
As for poorly edited and amateurish? I'm not really sure it was possible to even do better than that. It's probably pretty difficult to take images from an old episode and insert them into a new setting and make them believable. I for one think they did a good job.
Steven Moffat didn't want to "brainwash" people into thinking Clara was important. He wanted to come up with some story device which would allow the viewers to see the Doctor at the beginning of his travels and brief cameos all the Doctor's incarnations as a way of celebrating the past.
I think you have totally misunderstood the point of the last episode.
I didn't think this was tinkering with the past or meddling with the past, I saw it as a way to briefly include all the past Doctor's and celebrate the show's 50 year history as part of a storyline. Clara didn't change anything, she just ensured that it happened as it did by stopping the Great Intelligence.
As for poorly edited and amateurish? I'm not really sure it was possible to even do better than that. It's probably pretty difficult to take images from an old episode and insert them into a new setting and make them believable. I for one think they did a good job.
Steven Moffat didn't want to "brainwash" people into thinking Clara was important. He wanted to come up with some story device which would allow the viewers to see the Doctor at the beginning of his travels and brief cameos all the Doctor's incarnations as a way of celebrating the past.
I think you have totally misunderstood the point of the last episode.
Exactly!
And the fact that he managed, while doing all that, to give us an intriguing, nail-biting, perfectly paced, emotional, sad, funny and well written episode explains why I think Moffat is a genius. On a good day. :D
It all seemed a bit navel-gazey in some ways in that it was about the Doctor in all his incarnations and his impact on things, but as there is an ongoing story to conclude it might be that was needed to put context on what's going to happen next.
And the fact that he managed, while doing all that, to give us an intriguing, nail-biting, perfectly paced, emotional, sad, funny and well written episode explains why I think Moffat is a genius. On a good day. :D
All in less than 45 minutes. He certainly can deliver when it matters. Going back to the original theft without mucking it up. Splendid.
I agree but when it comes to Star Trek I'm firmly of the opinion that only the original series has real merit (for me) and the latest films are good in their own way but nothing to do with real Star Trek.
Yeah, I'm about there on Star Trek. Without The Shat there's no real point.
All in less than 45 minutes. He certainly can deliver when it matters. Going back to the original theft without mucking it up. Splendid.
Personally, I love the mad episodes packed with too many great scenes and ideas, but when Moffat brings it back down to the personal level and focusses, like he did here for the whole episode, he really delivers.
Not sure I understand which film you haven't seen. Revenge of the Sith?
Sorry, my mistake. I always get those two confused. I meant to say that I had not seen the second Star Trek film yet. I've seen all of the Star Wars films unfortunately.
Yes, I'm talking about Saturday's abomination. Being old enough to remember and enjoy the original Dr Who episodes I tuned in Saturday night to watch only the 2nd episode of this whole season and oh how I wish I hadn't. Why oh why oh why do writers feel the need to tinker with old and classic material (and the last two Star Trek films are included in this) and make up some ridiculous link and completely flush away the original memories of past episodes and story arcs. Are they that hard up for ideas of their own that they cannot write original stories? I didn't want to see Clara interacting with William Hartnell. So why did we? Because SM thought it would be fun to make us all think that this pointless character was there all along (yes the last 50 years) by inserting some cheesy conversation and clips of her with the other doctors which looked really amateurish. How insulting and arrogant of him to think by giving us 5 mins or so of these poorly executed clips that we would be brainwashed into believing that Clara was the pivotal character for all these years. What about all the other wonderful assistants that have gone before her? What an insult to their memories. I'm sorry, I know that most of you on here loved it and I respect that I really do. But I did not. When it first 'came back' with CE and Rose I thought what a great re-boot. The stories were original with only the odd mention here and there to the Dr's previous incarnations. But other the last 2 years SM has tried to be so clever that in my opinion he has failed and just got himself caught up in this long convoluted story arc (Lost comes to mind here) which seems to be going nowhere except off the edge of a cliff. Blink for me was SM's finest moment and I could reel of half a dozen more episodes with RD at the helm which I thought were electrifying and original. But please SM - leave the past alone. Respect the original series. Don't try to change history just for the sake of story writing.
I do agree with you that it seems rather arrogant to alter past stories (however slightly). And he definitely tries to be too clever. I really miss the epicness of Dr Who as it was about 5 years ago.
I do think a misunderstanding about the plot has led to the OP's dislike of the latest episode though (and also a misunderstanding of the Star Trek films). As far as I see it, everything that happened in Classic Who still happened but the GI tried to change things so Clara went back to keep things in track and prevent it. The same with Star Wars (although I've not seen the latest film yet so no spoilers please) but from the first one, again everything that happened in the original Star Trek still happened but we are now seeing things happening in a parallel universe. I don't really see how any of these things are re-working or tampering with what we have already seen. If anything they are just adding other layers to it.
Yes, I know the actual storylines remain unchanged, but I still think it's a bit arrogant for SM to have a character that he has created to now be the saviour of the Doctor in all those previous storylines.
Personally, I love the mad episodes packed with too many great scenes and ideas, but when Moffat brings it back down to the personal level and focusses, like he did here for the whole episode, he really delivers.
Yes. The way he can turn his hand to RTD capers such as Bells of St John, personal focussed things, Doctor Who mythology, absolutely bonkers things like Wedding of River Song, ambitious series arcs such as series six (not my taste, but credit for trying something new), film noir, comedy, very scary monsters. No wonder the BBC are glad to have him. Something for everyone. I could now list a few things I find infuriating about his time as showrunner. But even grumpy sods know he's quality ... and it could be much much worse.
Rather like with Star Trek 1/2 (Abrams ghastly fan-fiction mash-up) there is little point pointing out the poor quality of the writing on display in the last series of Dr Who.
The flash and wizzy-wizz is seemingly distracting people from the real-world dross that is the writing nowadays.
And yet series 5/6 were not bad at all, maybe somewhat lacking in grown-up emotion but still generally well-written.
Series 7 is poorly written. It's perplexing really.
Oh dear, dear, dear... You do seem to be rather superior at times.
No. The whizzy-wizz is not disguising bad writing. You feel that the writing is worse, so you are coming at it from a negative stand point, and are finding things to moan about. The writing is absolutely fine in my eyes, but I am not going to be so condescending (which is a lesson you could probably do with taking yourself) as to pretend that you aren't enjoying it because you clearly can't enjoy good writing, or claim that you simply aren't understanding it.
I'm going to allow for the fact that different people like different things, and not arrogantly claim that my viewpoint is the obvious correct one, and that those who disagree are wrong.
Yes, I know the actual storylines remain unchanged, but I still think it's a bit arrogant for SM to have a character that he has created to now be the saviour of the Doctor in all those previous storylines.
Nope, not 'saviour'. You're using the wrong word. A counter-foil to the GI, perhaps, but not a sviour of the Doctor.
Yes, I'm talking about Saturday's abomination. Being old enough to remember and enjoy the original Dr Who episodes I tuned in Saturday night to watch only the 2nd episode of this whole season and oh how I wish I hadn't. Why oh why oh why do writers feel the need to tinker with old and classic material (and the last two Star Trek films are included in this) and make up some ridiculous link and completely flush away the original memories of past episodes and story arcs. Are they that hard up for ideas of their own that they cannot write original stories? I didn't want to see Clara interacting with William Hartnell. So why did we? Because SM thought it would be fun to make us all think that this pointless character was there all along (yes the last 50 years) by inserting some cheesy conversation and clips of her with the other doctors which looked really amateurish. How insulting and arrogant of him to think by giving us 5 mins or so of these poorly executed clips that we would be brainwashed into believing that Clara was the pivotal character for all these years. What about all the other wonderful assistants that have gone before her? What an insult to their memories. I'm sorry, I know that most of you on here loved it and I respect that I really do. But I did not. When it first 'came back' with CE and Rose I thought what a great re-boot. The stories were original with only the odd mention here and there to the Dr's previous incarnations. But other the last 2 years SM has tried to be so clever that in my opinion he has failed and just got himself caught up in this long convoluted story arc (Lost comes to mind here) which seems to be going nowhere except off the edge of a cliff. Blink for me was SM's finest moment and I could reel of half a dozen more episodes with RD at the helm which I thought were electrifying and original. But please SM - leave the past alone. Respect the original series. Don't try to change history just for the sake of story writing.
Well she saves the Doctor (many times), so I think saviour is therefore an appropriate word to use!
The Doctor saved himself all those times before the GI got involved, all Clara did was put the timeline correct again. So although she technically saved him from the GI over and over I wouldn't say she saved him in any of the classic stories.
I do agree with you that it seems rather arrogant to alter past stories (however slightly). And he definitely tries to be too clever. I really miss the epicness of Dr Who as it was about 5 years ago.
What, a different alien invasion of London every other week? I don't.
The way I read the OP it's more the fact that Clra was clumsily connected to the past, for example the various Dcotors just running past her. Obviously because it's not any of the real actors.
Yey we got to see a 1-2 second clip of Patrick Troughton. That is it for his contribution in the 50th Anniversary celebration, unless the BBC are going to do reruns later in the year.
Was he and the other doctors shown because they were really needed in the story? No. They were shown for the fans to get excited about and purely so it can be said that all the Doctors were in the anniversary year or all in one story.
As far as the companions go, I read the OP as meaning so Clara went into all the Doctors time streams to save him, she is the ultimate companion who saved his life. How about the other companions who risked their lives to save the Doctor? I read it as it's an insult to what they did because this story made it look as if had Clara not down what she did the Doctor would have died, well she didn't save him everytime.
Perhaps the OP felt that whilst it was look how cool this is, there's Patrick, there's Tom, there's Jon etc, not one companion was shown (that I can remember) they had been totally written forgotten.
There was always hope/speculation of a multi-Doctor story similar to The Five Doctors, hopefully with all the surviving Doctors. That didn't happen we got these clip/images. Was it worth it? IMO not really. Equally I didn't want an episode like The Five Doctors because lets be honest only three from the original series could really get close to being what they were. Peter Sylvester and Paul.
Tom and Colin are much bigger than they were and older. They aren't going to be doing much moving aronud and running are they? Do we want to see a 6th Doctor without his curly hair and now his hair parted by his head? Yes theycould put a wig on him but you would just keep looking at the wig trying to see the join and thinking how bad it is.
Comments
The flash and wizzy-wizz is seemingly distracting people from the real-world dross that is the writing nowadays.
And yet series 5/6 were not bad at all, maybe somewhat lacking in grown-up emotion but still generally well-written.
Series 7 is poorly written. It's perplexing really.
**coughs self importantly**
Moffat is brilliant writer, as was RTD before him. Series 7 has been excellent on the whole. The series finale on Saturday was one of the very best Doctor Who episodes I have ever, ever seen, in all my 50 years of being a fan.
I loved seeing all the Classic era Doctors and especially the scene with Hartnell, which I had not dreamed we would get. It was magic.
I also had no difficulty in understanding Clara's role, which was to restore the status quo after the GI had buggered it up.
(I like the new Star Trek, too.
Brilliant answer Granny and I agree with all you say, but I don't realy know what Clara actually did to stop the G.I. All you see is her at the same location as the previous Doctor's and with the exception of Doc 1 she doesnt seem to actually do anything.
I suppose there wasn't time (or money) to show all her interactions with all the Doctors. I took it as a Turn Left type scenario - either by a word or an action she made the Doctor take the path he originally had taken. As Donna in Turn Left was unaware that the alternative Donna had sacrificed herself in order to get things back on track, then the various Doctors were probably unaware of her presence.
I'm not sure what is so perplexing about different people liking different things. Good or bad writing is rather subjective.
Now if you don't mind. I've just seen something bright and shiny in the corner of the room, which is probably going to distract me from finishing what I was...
*Thumbs up*
As for poorly edited and amateurish? I'm not really sure it was possible to even do better than that. It's probably pretty difficult to take images from an old episode and insert them into a new setting and make them believable. I for one think they did a good job.
Steven Moffat didn't want to "brainwash" people into thinking Clara was important. He wanted to come up with some story device which would allow the viewers to see the Doctor at the beginning of his travels and brief cameos all the Doctor's incarnations as a way of celebrating the past.
I think you have totally misunderstood the point of the last episode.
Exactly!
And the fact that he managed, while doing all that, to give us an intriguing, nail-biting, perfectly paced, emotional, sad, funny and well written episode explains why I think Moffat is a genius. On a good day.
The difference was back in the classic era there was no internet to hear everyone's views.
All in less than 45 minutes. He certainly can deliver when it matters. Going back to the original theft without mucking it up. Splendid.
Not sure I understand which film you haven't seen. Revenge of the Sith?
Yeah, I'm about there on Star Trek. Without The Shat there's no real point.
Personally, I love the mad episodes packed with too many great scenes and ideas, but when Moffat brings it back down to the personal level and focusses, like he did here for the whole episode, he really delivers.
Sorry, my mistake. I always get those two confused. I meant to say that I had not seen the second Star Trek film yet. I've seen all of the Star Wars films unfortunately.
I do agree with you that it seems rather arrogant to alter past stories (however slightly). And he definitely tries to be too clever. I really miss the epicness of Dr Who as it was about 5 years ago.
Yes, I know the actual storylines remain unchanged, but I still think it's a bit arrogant for SM to have a character that he has created to now be the saviour of the Doctor in all those previous storylines.
Yes. The way he can turn his hand to RTD capers such as Bells of St John, personal focussed things, Doctor Who mythology, absolutely bonkers things like Wedding of River Song, ambitious series arcs such as series six (not my taste, but credit for trying something new), film noir, comedy, very scary monsters. No wonder the BBC are glad to have him. Something for everyone. I could now list a few things I find infuriating about his time as showrunner. But even grumpy sods know he's quality ... and it could be much much worse.
Oh dear, dear, dear... You do seem to be rather superior at times.
No. The whizzy-wizz is not disguising bad writing. You feel that the writing is worse, so you are coming at it from a negative stand point, and are finding things to moan about. The writing is absolutely fine in my eyes, but I am not going to be so condescending (which is a lesson you could probably do with taking yourself) as to pretend that you aren't enjoying it because you clearly can't enjoy good writing, or claim that you simply aren't understanding it.
I'm going to allow for the fact that different people like different things, and not arrogantly claim that my viewpoint is the obvious correct one, and that those who disagree are wrong.
Please try to learn that.
Nope, not 'saviour'. You're using the wrong word. A counter-foil to the GI, perhaps, but not a sviour of the Doctor.
I enjoyed seeing the other doctors
Well she saves the Doctor (many times), so I think saviour is therefore an appropriate word to use!
The Doctor saved himself all those times before the GI got involved, all Clara did was put the timeline correct again. So although she technically saved him from the GI over and over I wouldn't say she saved him in any of the classic stories.
Because other people did.
What, a different alien invasion of London every other week? I don't.
Yey we got to see a 1-2 second clip of Patrick Troughton. That is it for his contribution in the 50th Anniversary celebration, unless the BBC are going to do reruns later in the year.
Was he and the other doctors shown because they were really needed in the story? No. They were shown for the fans to get excited about and purely so it can be said that all the Doctors were in the anniversary year or all in one story.
As far as the companions go, I read the OP as meaning so Clara went into all the Doctors time streams to save him, she is the ultimate companion who saved his life. How about the other companions who risked their lives to save the Doctor? I read it as it's an insult to what they did because this story made it look as if had Clara not down what she did the Doctor would have died, well she didn't save him everytime.
Perhaps the OP felt that whilst it was look how cool this is, there's Patrick, there's Tom, there's Jon etc, not one companion was shown (that I can remember) they had been totally written forgotten.
There was always hope/speculation of a multi-Doctor story similar to The Five Doctors, hopefully with all the surviving Doctors. That didn't happen we got these clip/images. Was it worth it? IMO not really. Equally I didn't want an episode like The Five Doctors because lets be honest only three from the original series could really get close to being what they were. Peter Sylvester and Paul.
Tom and Colin are much bigger than they were and older. They aren't going to be doing much moving aronud and running are they? Do we want to see a 6th Doctor without his curly hair and now his hair parted by his head? Yes theycould put a wig on him but you would just keep looking at the wig trying to see the join and thinking how bad it is.