|
||||||||
Doctor Who Spoilers & Information (Part 3) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#301 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: York
Posts: 426
|
Quote:
With a few BBC series being premiered on BBC iPlayer ahead of transmission (New Blood is fantastic by the way), what if the first episode of the new series was released ahead of it's BBC One showing? Would anyone object? I know I wouldn't. It's a brave new digital marketing world out there for streaming TV and Films and Doctor Who shouldn't pass it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#302 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
We will have to agree to disagree here.
Given the video which goes along with this monologue (showing her with every single Doctor, directing the First Doctor to a specific Tardis, etc..) and the monologue itself, I think that it is heavily implied (if not explicitly shown) that she is always there ("Thousands of lives" - he hasn't even had a thousand adventures as of yet). To think otherwise, I believe, is to willfully downplay the entire scenario in order to not have to face the absolute mess that Moffat has made of The Doctor's past. As a fan, I was just happy to get a glimpse of a part of the Doctor's past we'd never been privy to before. Thousands of lives? Are you seriously using that as an objection? You know it's implied that the Doctor has had lots of other adventures not portrayed on our television screens, right? He has a life (as a fictional character) outside of what we're shown on TV. What consequences have their been for all those stories you say are now "a mess"? None whatsoever. Clara's interventions cancelled out the GI's changes. Invisible mending. Was the outcome of any of those old adventures ultimately changed? No. Will the BBC ever issue modified versions, with Clara (or the GI) cleverly inserted into old footage, lurking in the background and available as an option via seamless branching to "Select preferred version: Pre-GI or Post-GI or Post-Clara" on the DVD menu? Nope. BIB: From my perspective, you wilfully exaggerate its importance, because you already dislike like Steven Moffat's work. Sheesh! From your response, anyone would think the origin of the Daleks had been re-written or something... ![]() We disagree, that's all. It's subjective and there's no such thing as an objectively correct opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
#303 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
|
Quote:
With a few BBC series being premiered on BBC iPlayer ahead of transmission (New Blood is fantastic by the way), what if the first episode of the new series was released ahead of it's BBC One showing? Would anyone object? I know I wouldn't. It's a brave new digital marketing world out there for streaming TV and Films and Doctor Who shouldn't pass it up.
Channel's never tend to do such a thing with their established 'hot properties', as in theory, the audience is already there and excitedly eager for the newest episodes anyway. What I'm trying to say is that, if a Doctor Who episode was ever put on Iplayer before it was actually broadcast, that would say to me that the bbc had come to the conclusion that the show was now struggling so much that they had to do everything possible to try and get an audience. Not to mention it would make the overnight broadcast ratings so, so bad, because anyone who is a big fan would surely watch the early online version and hence not watch on the night. |
|
|
|
|
|
#304 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
|
Moffat says he want's series 10 'to feel like a new show'
in an article it says In a teaser from a new interview in the next issue of Doctor Who Magazine, Moffat says: “I want it to feel like Episode 1 of a brand new show.” He added: “I want to leave just as it’s all beginning…” http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/headli...ow-says-moffat Have to say it sounds a bit egotistical to me. Sounds like he thinks the show should cut ties from the old era again, like what he did in 2010, but that he want's to be the one to start the new era for Chibnall to follow, rather than just bowing out gracefully and letting Chibnall do his own thing and starting afresh in series 11. |
|
|
|
|
|
#305 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 697
|
Quote:
Moffat says he want's series 10 'to feel like a new show'
in an article it says In a teaser from a new interview in the next issue of Doctor Who Magazine, Moffat says: “I want it to feel like Episode 1 of a brand new show.” He added: “I want to leave just as it’s all beginning…” http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/headli...ow-says-moffat Have to say it sounds a bit egotistical to me. Sounds like he thinks the show should cut ties from the old era again, like what he did in 2010, but that he want's to be the one to start the new era for Chibnall to follow, rather than just bowing out gracefully and letting Chibnall do his own thing and starting afresh in series 11. But if Moffat is completely changing it on his own accord, i don't think it is the best to have two complete reboots for lack of a better term in back to back seasons. |
|
|
|
|
|
#306 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,506
|
Quote:
Moffat says he want's series 10 'to feel like a new show'
in an article it says In a teaser from a new interview in the next issue of Doctor Who Magazine, Moffat says: “I want it to feel like Episode 1 of a brand new show.” He added: “I want to leave just as it’s all beginning…” http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/headli...ow-says-moffat Have to say it sounds a bit egotistical to me. Sounds like he thinks the show should cut ties from the old era again, like what he did in 2010, but that he want's to be the one to start the new era for Chibnall to follow, rather than just bowing out gracefully and letting Chibnall do his own thing and starting afresh in series 11. I'm sure Moffat and Chibnall have had plenty of talk about how they're going to handle the transition, similar to how RTD and Moffat (and Tennant) did. I can't see Moffat gagging and tying Chibnall to a chair, pointing a chainsaw at him and saying "We're going to play by my rules, Sancho". Chibnall will inevitably have more control over it anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
#307 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Spain with Annie
Posts: 7,954
|
Quote:
Moffat says he want's series 10 'to feel like a new show'
in an article it says In a teaser from a new interview in the next issue of Doctor Who Magazine, Moffat says: “I want it to feel like Episode 1 of a brand new show.” He added: “I want to leave just as it’s all beginning…” http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/headli...ow-says-moffat Have to say it sounds a bit egotistical to me. Sounds like he thinks the show should cut ties from the old era again, like what he did in 2010, but that he want's to be the one to start the new era for Chibnall to follow, rather than just bowing out gracefully and letting Chibnall do his own thing and starting afresh in series 11. |
|
|
|
|
|
#308 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deep Space Nine
Posts: 1,855
|
Quote:
Moffat says he want's series 10 'to feel like a new show'
in an article it says In a teaser from a new interview in the next issue of Doctor Who Magazine, Moffat says: “I want it to feel like Episode 1 of a brand new show.” He added: “I want to leave just as it’s all beginning…” http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/headli...ow-says-moffat Have to say it sounds a bit egotistical to me. Sounds like he thinks the show should cut ties from the old era again, like what he did in 2010, but that he want's to be the one to start the new era for Chibnall to follow, rather than just bowing out gracefully and letting Chibnall do his own thing and starting afresh in series 11. |
|
|
|
|
|
#309 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
|
Quote:
Doesn't sound egotistical at all to me. But then again, I'm not looking for excuses to criticise Moffat like some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#310 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
|
Quote:
Everything the man says sounds egotistical to some people. If it was "I want my last series to feel like the end of an era" it would be complaints about how much importance he places on his era. He just can't please some people, even in a mere interview.
I'm sure Moffat and Chibnall have had plenty of talk about how they're going to handle the transition, similar to how RTD and Moffat (and Tennant) did. I can't see Moffat gagging and tying Chibnall to a chair, pointing a chainsaw at him and saying "We're going to play by my rules, Sancho". Chibnall will inevitably have more control over it anyway. Then again, I should have expected it from Moffat. The biggest hallmark of his era for me is him having much more interest in starting something new rather than finishing off what he has already done, so I suppose he is at least staying true to form. |
|
|
|
|
|
#311 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
|
Quote:
Hardly egotistical. I'd prefer brand new rather than "same old, same old" for his last series. Go out in a blaze of glory as they say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#312 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: sutton, surrey
Posts: 7,510
|
Quote:
Ironically for me, even though series 9 was advertised in the above misjudged way, and suffered in ratings, I actually thought it was one of Moffats strongest series overall (though not the final episode sadly). It was definitely an improvement on series 8, and series 8 was in itself an improvement on the later half of series 7 (if you take out every Danny and Clara scene, which just dragged that series down).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#313 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
Ironically for me, even though series 9 was advertised in the above misjudged way, and suffered in ratings, I actually thought it was one of Moffats strongest series overall (though not the final episode sadly). It was definitely an improvement on series 8, and series 8 was in itself an improvement on the later half of series 7 (if you take out every Danny and Clara scene, which just dragged that series down).
Like with 'Into the Dalek' we had a 5 minute scene with Clara and Danny after the titles. And for an episode called 'Into the Dalek' we don't go INTO the Dalek until like 15 minutes in. Same goes for Listen, the 'Clara and Danny go on a date!' scenes were just so pointless |
|
|
|
|
|
#314 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
Everything the man says sounds egotistical to some people. If it was "I want my last series to feel like the end of an era" it would be complaints about how much importance he places on his era. He just can't please some people, even in a mere interview.
I'm sure Moffat and Chibnall have had plenty of talk about how they're going to handle the transition, similar to how RTD and Moffat (and Tennant) did. I can't see Moffat gagging and tying Chibnall to a chair, pointing a chainsaw at him and saying "We're going to play by my rules, Sancho". Chibnall will inevitably have more control over it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#315 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
Yeah, totally agree.
Like with 'Into the Dalek' we had a 5 minute scene with Clara and Danny after the titles. And for an episode called 'Into the Dalek' we don't go INTO the Dalek until like 15 minutes in. Same goes for Listen, the 'Clara and Danny go on a date!' scenes were just so pointless |
|
|
|
|
|
#316 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London or Valencia
Posts: 5,733
|
Quote:
Not a big fan of character development then? Would you rather just have weird sh&t happening all the time? If there were no character moments, you wouldn't care what happens to them.
Series 8 seemed to be a conscious effort to slow the pace down a bit and give us some better character development. But it really was an effort. The plot too often had to stop in order to give us some shoehorned in Danny content that was never particularly effective. The intent was admirable but the approach was all wrong. I'd say Moffat got far better with Series 9. Time was taken to give the likes of Clara, Davros, even the Doctor some interesting character development. But it really is a balancing act - you need to be able to advance both your plot and your characters simultaneously when you've only 45 minutes and a dozen episodes a year to work with. I don't think Series 8 did quite a good job with that. And Series 5-7 were largely lacking in consistent character development altogether, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
#317 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,506
|
I think Series 9 had the advantage of less but longer stories, giving them a lot more time for both character development and plot. It is, I would say, the most balanced series yet when it comes to the two, as opposed to the RTD era, which leaned more towards character development, and the Matt Smith era, which leaned more towards plot. Making a series up mostly of two-parters might mean less stories, but I think it did Series 9 a world of good in terms of pacing and the like and it's something I'd prefer to see more of in the future... quality over quantity. New Who has always been one to suffer from rushed stories with little time to flesh them out. The original run often and consistently delivered self-contained stories and settings that could have been strong enough to stand as their own movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#318 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
|
Quote:
Not a big fan of character development then? Would you rather just have weird sh&t happening all the time? If there were no character moments, you wouldn't care what happens to them.
Quote:
I think Series 9 had the advantage of less but longer stories, giving them a lot more time for both character development and plot. It is, I would say, the most balanced series yet when it comes to the two, as opposed to the RTD era, which leaned more towards character development, and the Matt Smith era, which leaned more towards plot. Making a series up mostly of two-parters might mean less stories, but I think it did Series 9 a world of good in terms of pacing and the like and it's something I'd prefer to see more of in the future... quality over quantity. New Who has always been one to suffer from rushed stories with little time to flesh them out. The original run often and consistently delivered self-contained stories and settings that could have been strong enough to stand as their own movies.
Of course there's more breathing room to a two parter, but I think it's more down to writing than length. Episodes like Blink or Midnight for example are stories that prove you can write something excellent and completely satisfying in the one episode slot, whereas stories like the series 5 Silurian 2 parter or the end of time parts 1 and 2 are more examples of stories that had a bit too much time on their hands and might have actually been stronger as single episode stories. |
|
|
|
|
|
#319 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 697
|
Quote:
Not a big fan of character development then? Would you rather just have weird sh&t happening all the time? If there were no character moments, you wouldn't care what happens to them.
The issue is its a short series, Listen i despised there time together as one it was essentially 20 minutes of watching a date which isn't Doctor Who, but most importantly it halted the plot. The balance wasn't there, then we have another episode with the killer robot thing which literally got a 5 minute look in and then some poor character development for the rest of that episode. Doctor Who is a show which is definitely plot orientated, so that means the character development needs to be done within the story. An example of how it was done right in S8 was Kill the Moon got the perfect blend of the 2. |
|
|
|
|
|
#320 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 697
|
Quote:
Since I mostly enjoyed series 9, I'd agree with you on the quality comment, but I would also say that having nearly all two parters felt a bit too heavy, to the point when the few single episodes were drawing near it felt like a break where we could have a bit of fun and move on.
Of course there's more breathing room to a two parter, but I think it's more down to writing than length. Episodes like Blink or Midnight for example are stories that prove you can write something excellent and completely satisfying in the one episode slot, whereas stories like the series 5 Silurian 2 parter or the end of time parts 1 and 2 are more examples of stories that had a bit too much time on their hands and might have actually been stronger as single episode stories. |
|
|
|
|
|
#321 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,590
|
Quote:
Doesn't sound egotistical at all to me. But then again, I'm not looking for excuses to criticise Moffat like some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#322 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London or Valencia
Posts: 5,733
|
Quote:
Since I mostly enjoyed series 9, I'd agree with you on the quality comment, but I would also say that having nearly all two parters felt a bit too heavy, to the point when the few single episodes were drawing near it felt like a break where we could have a bit of fun and move on.
Of course there's more breathing room to a two parter, but I think it's more down to writing than length. Episodes like Blink or Midnight for example are stories that prove you can write something excellent and completely satisfying in the one episode slot, whereas stories like the series 5 Silurian 2 parter or the end of time parts 1 and 2 are more examples of stories that had a bit too much time on their hands and might have actually been stronger as single episode stories. I also would have seen little harm in splitting up the two stories in the middle. Aside from the paired titles for the series, there seemed little reason for The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived to be right next to eachother. With some slight tinkering, The Girl Who Died would have nicely seperated the Moffat and Whithouse two-parters that made the series feel rather top-heavy for a while. It would have gotten the mystery of the Ashildr character rolling quicker then too, spreading it out more evenly across the series. Quote:
I definitely feel 2 parters are the way to go, it allows for so much more depth to a story, creates a wider range of possibilities and that you actual care about the characters in that story, they are given time to develop. They weren't perfect in S9, but they all had some very good elements. But the issue was down to the writing which many many single episodes have had. My mix of a season would be 4 2 parters and 4 single episodes.
But then I think they're crucial to pacing. Not all two-parters yield strong results, and they can be a tremendous chore to get through - true in both the RTD and Moffat era. Some of the best stories of the past decade have been standalones. When I consider Series 6, I think the standalones are infinitely superior to the two-part stories in that year. But it's dependent on the story being told - arc-heavy, or a standalone two-parter, or part of a bigger as-of-yet-unseen picture, or opening a series, or closing a series. I don't think a series of whole of either is effective. Series 7 felt so unsubstantial, like a succession of 'specials' that barely qualify for series status at all at times. Series 9 was less offensive at the opposite end of the spectrum but I think because effort was made to make each half of each two-parter so distinctive - a distinction you can't always force on a story. |
|
|
|
|
#323 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
I literally didn't care about Danny what so ever, made worse by the fact we were meant to hate him by the writing. And he also didn't change one bit the entire series i might add.
The issue is its a short series, Listen i despised there time together as one it was essentially 20 minutes of watching a date which isn't Doctor Who, but most importantly it halted the plot. The balance wasn't there, then we have another episode with the killer robot thing which literally got a 5 minute look in and then some poor character development for the rest of that episode. Doctor Who is a show which is definitely plot orientated, so that means the character development needs to be done within the story. An example of how it was done right in S8 was Kill the Moon got the perfect blend of the 2. |
|
|
|
|
|
#324 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 697
|
Quote:
"Meant to hate him"!? No. Not at all. We weren't meant to hate him. He argued with the Doctor, he wanted to protect Clara and that's all. He's a character deeply misunderstood by some.
Danny was literally just the poster boy of what people think of soldiers and SM wanted to illustrate that via The Doctor and his actions. The man had no depth as a character, was rude and literally had nothing to do but argue. Even his scenes with Clara were them arguing, not even showing them have a good time. Edit: And to advance Clara's development was Danny's purpose in the show along with what i mentioned. Danny himself was a truly one dimensional character whose only purpose in the show was to create conflict. |
|
|
|
|
|
#325 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
When the main character of the show strongly dislikes a character, and said character has no redeeming features i'd say yes meant to hate. It was the intention of the writers for him to not be well liked and argue with The Doctor and chat shit.
Danny was literally just the poster boy of what people think of soldiers and SM wanted to illustrate that via The Doctor and his actions. The man had no depth as a character, was rude and literally had nothing to do but argue. Even his scenes with Clara were them arguing, not even showing them have a good time. Edit: And to advance Clara's development was Danny's purpose in the show along with what i mentioned. Danny himself was a truly one dimensional character whose only purpose in the show was to create conflict. As for the romance scenes, they felt reasonably realistic as two smart characters, both with issues, got to know each other and overcame awkwardness and embarrassment. They were shown getting on with each other though it was far from being all sweetness and light. All scenes in a TV show are meant to progress the story (in this case, of the romance) so it was important to show them getting on as well as not getting on. I agree that Steven Moffat's purpose in writing Danny was to generate conflict and therefore drama. It felt false to me, not because of Danny, but because the Doctor was wrong. The Doctor's attitude was blind prejudice and that is never a good thing. Without the existence of Danny and that romance you couldn't have had the dramatic scenes with Clara attempting to steal the TARDIS and in so doing threatening the Doctor. And you wouldn't have seen the nicer side of this then new Doctor forgiving her and doing everything in his power to bring back Danny from the dead. And Danny did have redeeming qualities. Perhaps you didn't notice he was honourable, loving, kind, forgiving and caring. The only thing he needed redeeming for was the mistake he made when he was a soldier and he was redeemed for that. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:59.





