So all those who didn't understand it were "idiots".
Thanks for clearing that up.......
Oh how I wish I was as super intelligent as some on here seem to think they are....
No, of course not, but the fact remains that if you were paying close enough attention it was very explicitly explained that the burning monster thing was Clara as the scanner said exactly the same thing. That isn't something that's hard to notice, that's like holding up a sign saying 'this is Clara'.
So I don't think it's right to say the episode wasn't clear enough on that point, because if it were any clearer there'd have been a nametag on the thing.
How Clara came to be that monster wasn't so well explained, but the fact it was her was pretty clearly signposted.
I see the poll has been recalibrated to the normal settings but the votes not moved accordingly. My vote for "good" (the middle option) is now "average" (the new third option) which is not what I voted for. I voted "good". It would have been better to wipe the poll and start again than to do this. This is going to make the episode look a lot worse than it really was. In truth the series is picking up from a lousy first two episodes but still not quite hit its stride in terms of pace, tone or coherence.
There definitely were things wrong with this episode, and I have no problem with much of the reasoned criticism that has been posted here. Clearly these flaws spoil the enjoyment for different people to different degrees. What I am at a loss to account for is the "worst episode ever" type comments when it wasn’t even the worst of this series. As always, the appropriate punishment for talking such nonsense is to watch The Twin Dilemma and write 5000 words explaining how it is better than this, while everybody else points and laughs.
No, of course not, but the fact remains that if you were paying close enough attention it was very explicitly explained that the burning monster thing was Clara as the scanner said exactly the same thing. That isn't something that's hard to notice, that's like holding up a sign saying 'this is Clara'.
So I don't think it's right to say the episode wasn't clear enough on that point, because if it were any clearer there'd have been a nametag on the thing.
How Clara came to be that monster wasn't so well explained, but the fact it was her was pretty clearly signposted.
So all those who didn't understand it were "idiots".
Thanks for clearing that up.......
Oh how I wish I was as super intelligent as some on here seem to think they are....
I wasn't talking about EVERYONE who didn't understand/see the monster explanation thing...you'd have to be an idiot to read that into what I wrote... ... ...:p
There definitely were things wrong with this episode, and I have no problem with much of the reasoned criticism that has been posted here. Clearly these flaws spoil the enjoyment for different people to different degrees.
The main problem these days is that people, with lots of 'popular' prime-time 'drama'(because there isn;t that much of it these days with reality crap wall-to-wall) is that people pick everything apart pointing out 'plot holes', 'unexplained loose threads etc when there have always been thee things in TV shows and films etc because if there weren't plot stories would never make it to the screen and would disappear into a logic hole.
I'm not bothered about the odd unrxplained thing but understanding the ending of a show is key to the enjoyment of said show is quite an important thing. An being called an idiot for not understanding is quite offensive.
I'm not bothered about the odd unrxplained thing but understanding the ending of a show is key to the enjoyment of said show is quite an important thing. An being called an idiot for not understanding is quite offensive.
As far as I can see the only person calling you an idiot is yourself?
All I can say is that I found the ending to be clearly explained to me. I cannot pretend otherwise because that's how I saw it. And I don't consider myself a particularly intelligent person but I just got it. They had a whole big discussion in the engine room about them being burned up in there, which turned them into zombies.
I would personally hate a return to stories consisting of four short parts. You can easily tell a brilliant story in 45 minutes.
I think doing so would alienate the modern day audience. Not a lot of people have long attention spans these days. Also, if they story is a bad one, then most of the time you have to wait three more weeks for it to end.
Attention spans seem to have shortened but on the other hand a lot of films are far longer than they used to be, so if people want to they can concentrate. At least I assume so as I havn't been to the cinema for years.
You can tell a good story in 45 minutes and there are lots of examples, but while some work perfectly others do seem rushed. To me 2 x 25 or 30 minutes or 1 hour (instead of 45 minutes) would work better. Okay so they're not going to do that but Black Orchid is a fantastic example of how it can be done, not to mention being the last true historical *sigh* but that's another thing entirely...
You can tell a good story in 45 minutes and there are lots of examples, but while some work perfectly others do seem rushed. To me 2 x 25 or 30 minutes or 1 hour (instead of 45 minutes) would work better..
The Sontaran Experiment was one of the few two-parters during a series of Baker's that were all essentially based around space station (apart from the Sontaran Experiment that was set on the planet below) and that one did seem a very small short story compared with the 4 parter - always felt it could have had more about it.
I would personally hate a return to stories consisting of four short parts. You can easily tell a brilliant story in 45 minutes.
I think doing so would alienate the modern day audience. Not a lot of people have long attention spans these days. Also, if they story is a bad one, then most of the time you have to wait three more weeks for it to end.
I agree with this. Okay, some of you may be disappointed with Doctor Who at the moment and that's fair enough, but I also think it's fair to say that Doctor Who is better than a lot of the rubbish on television at the moment. I'd rather watch The Rings of Akhaten on loop than endure such rubbish as The Voice, The XFactor, The Only Way is Bloody Essex...or anything on ITV for that matter.
I don't agree that multi-part stories necessarily alienate the moden audience. If that was correct, how do you explain the success of Broadchurch or Torchwood: Children of Earth or any number of multi-part series? They used to be called mini-series.
Personally I dislike old-fashioned TV series with each episode entriely self-contained and no continuity with episodes made earlier or later. They were made that way for commercial TV so they could be shown in any order.
I like the current trend of series with individual eps that are part of a longer term ongoing arc. It gives time for more complex strories and can still allow new viewers to enjoy the individual episodes.
The two part stories have been a bit hit and miss for me. The TRF/AP was padded but TDotM/TIA was brilliant.
Generally, many of the Moffat era stories need an extra 5 to 10 minutes to develop the guest characters a bit more and round of the resolution properly instead of overusing the sonic screwdriver.
Comments
No, of course not, but the fact remains that if you were paying close enough attention it was very explicitly explained that the burning monster thing was Clara as the scanner said exactly the same thing. That isn't something that's hard to notice, that's like holding up a sign saying 'this is Clara'.
So I don't think it's right to say the episode wasn't clear enough on that point, because if it were any clearer there'd have been a nametag on the thing.
How Clara came to be that monster wasn't so well explained, but the fact it was her was pretty clearly signposted.
There definitely were things wrong with this episode, and I have no problem with much of the reasoned criticism that has been posted here. Clearly these flaws spoil the enjoyment for different people to different degrees. What I am at a loss to account for is the "worst episode ever" type comments when it wasn’t even the worst of this series. As always, the appropriate punishment for talking such nonsense is to watch The Twin Dilemma and write 5000 words explaining how it is better than this, while everybody else points and laughs.
Preach. QFT!
I wasn't talking about EVERYONE who didn't understand/see the monster explanation thing...you'd have to be an idiot to read that into what I wrote... ... ...:p
The main problem these days is that people, with lots of 'popular' prime-time 'drama'(because there isn;t that much of it these days with reality crap wall-to-wall) is that people pick everything apart pointing out 'plot holes', 'unexplained loose threads etc when there have always been thee things in TV shows and films etc because if there weren't plot stories would never make it to the screen and would disappear into a logic hole.
I think you missed a word...
Oh the irony...
What is "Lancashire sass ?". As a Londoner I've never heard it before.:)
As far as I can see the only person calling you an idiot is yourself?
All I can say is that I found the ending to be clearly explained to me. I cannot pretend otherwise because that's how I saw it. And I don't consider myself a particularly intelligent person but I just got it. They had a whole big discussion in the engine room about them being burned up in there, which turned them into zombies.
Attention spans seem to have shortened but on the other hand a lot of films are far longer than they used to be, so if people want to they can concentrate. At least I assume so as I havn't been to the cinema for years.
You can tell a good story in 45 minutes and there are lots of examples, but while some work perfectly others do seem rushed. To me 2 x 25 or 30 minutes or 1 hour (instead of 45 minutes) would work better. Okay so they're not going to do that but Black Orchid is a fantastic example of how it can be done, not to mention being the last true historical *sigh* but that's another thing entirely...
What on earth does that mean? That he criticizes an episode he didn't like? Oh noes!
What exactly is wrong with that?
I thought he made some very good points, with which I agree.
The Sontaran Experiment was one of the few two-parters during a series of Baker's that were all essentially based around space station (apart from the Sontaran Experiment that was set on the planet below) and that one did seem a very small short story compared with the 4 parter - always felt it could have had more about it.
I don't agree that multi-part stories necessarily alienate the moden audience. If that was correct, how do you explain the success of Broadchurch or Torchwood: Children of Earth or any number of multi-part series? They used to be called mini-series.
Personally I dislike old-fashioned TV series with each episode entriely self-contained and no continuity with episodes made earlier or later. They were made that way for commercial TV so they could be shown in any order.
I like the current trend of series with individual eps that are part of a longer term ongoing arc. It gives time for more complex strories and can still allow new viewers to enjoy the individual episodes.
The two part stories have been a bit hit and miss for me. The TRF/AP was padded but TDotM/TIA was brilliant.
Generally, many of the Moffat era stories need an extra 5 to 10 minutes to develop the guest characters a bit more and round of the resolution properly instead of overusing the sonic screwdriver.
But I would like some cliff-hangers please!
It had more than a hint of irony...
No no you heard that wrong. It's Lancashire's Arse. It's a reference to Blackpool.
I beg to differ.