I just wonder how many people have looked through this thread and have avoided posting .... because they know their views and opinions will be belittled and the topic hijacked.
Guess what guys - you win ....
Guess what guys - you win ....
Results:What did you think to the show?
Very poor
16 (2.44%)
Poor
10 (1.52%)
Fair
24 (3.65%)
Good
58 (8.83%)
Very Good
168 (25.57%)
Fantastic!
381 (57.99%)
Voters: 657. You can't vote on this poll right now - are you signed in?
Doctor Who 28th of May
14 of 58
Originally Posted by romanwinecow:
“Just again, not that i'm getting repetative. :yawn: The points I have mentioned should be raised, but over time. Not just addressed in one episode. If spread out there is good evidence for dual meaning, careful explanation. But in one episode out of 13 you cant really avoid it.”
“Just again, not that i'm getting repetative. :yawn: The points I have mentioned should be raised, but over time. Not just addressed in one episode. If spread out there is good evidence for dual meaning, careful explanation. But in one episode out of 13 you cant really avoid it.”
I see what you're saying roman but I still think that given CJ's appearance and character and the 1941 setting, the resolution of Nancy being Jamie's mother...all these so called issues grew from the fabric of the story being told. Now whether you (not you personally, but one) think CJ as a bisexual should not be introduced into a show like DW is just going to be a matter of taste in the end but every thing else seemed to fit...obviously I'm bias and for the record, just last week people were crying out for DW to have a little more edge to it and not be all farting aliens and special effects...well, I think they got their wish in "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances". I hope next week's is a cracking adventure plot without too much emphasis on the ills of nuclear energy to keep balance but if it's there, I'm sure there'll be a damn good story...as I've said, I have a totally irrational belief that the return of the Slitheen will be an improvement on AOL/WW3...
Originally Posted by tomorrow:
“I just wonder how many people have looked through this thread and have avoided posting .... because they know their views and opinions will be belittled and the topic hijacked.
Guess what guys - you win ....”
“I just wonder how many people have looked through this thread and have avoided posting .... because they know their views and opinions will be belittled and the topic hijacked.
Guess what guys - you win ....”
No-one's views are ever belittled here. And this current topic is just a bit of Saturday night post-pub laddish banter. It'll all seem most inappropriate and embarrassing in the morning.
Originally Posted by Evil Eye:
“Just one question.
Why should homosexuality be treated as an 'issue' in the first pace? Surely the way to remove any problems peopl have with it in society from the next generation is to treat it as part and parcel of everyday life and not make an issue out of it. Therefore whether it is relevant or not, surely hinting at it in passing lie they did several tiems in tonights episode is a good thing.
If you think of homosexuality liket his then there really weren't that many issues in tonights epsidoe at all.”
“Just one question.
Why should homosexuality be treated as an 'issue' in the first pace? Surely the way to remove any problems peopl have with it in society from the next generation is to treat it as part and parcel of everyday life and not make an issue out of it. Therefore whether it is relevant or not, surely hinting at it in passing lie they did several tiems in tonights episode is a good thing.
If you think of homosexuality liket his then there really weren't that many issues in tonights epsidoe at all.”
To both points,
the C word, as I said choose what you think is should have been, its not decietfull, I think its quite apparent to me and to you the word that I chose. With more than 5 references to the issues I raised there was a message someone was trying to convey.
The homosexuality was only one part of the issue not "The Issue" but people tend to pick up on an issue like that as you have and inflate it so it looks like the major issue.
From the start of this I said that the issues could have been addressed over several weeks not all in one episode. If it were spread over several weeks there was the possibility to say it had a dual meaning.
Originally Posted by gymboy:
“No-one's views are ever belittled here. And this current topic is just a bit of Saturday night post-pub laddish banter. It'll all seem most inappropriate and embarrassing in the morning.”
“No-one's views are ever belittled here. And this current topic is just a bit of Saturday night post-pub laddish banter. It'll all seem most inappropriate and embarrassing in the morning.”
Ah yes...back to Bad Wolf in the morning it is then
Originally Posted by tomorrow:
“I just wonder how many people have looked through this thread and have avoided posting .... because they know their views and opinions will be belittled and the topic hijacked.
Guess what guys - you win ....”
“I just wonder how many people have looked through this thread and have avoided posting .... because they know their views and opinions will be belittled and the topic hijacked.
Guess what guys - you win ....”
Well that is a give up if ever I saw one. Surely a message board is not a place for people to post their views and have them left for ever never to be commented upon. I take a place like this to be somewhere people make posts about their views and others who disagree with them challenge then and the people discuss it all and try to convince each other that the other is right etc.
If everyone agrees then there is no problem, everyone is happy.
If people are equally split there never seems to be a problem.
But if most people are of one perusasion and only a few on the opposite, then often someone gets accussed of be-littleing and putting down. This is not the case here. It is just some people who seriously disagree with what a coupe of other people think. Nothing wrong with diasagreeing, but not to challenge something you disagree with is not the way you go about it (provided things are not taken to the extrme of personal insults etc (which is hopefully not what I and others have done here)).
As far as I was concerned there was no implication of anything sexual between the fat man and the butcher. I felt the implication was clear of a "private arrangement" concerning rations (illegal) such as Jonesy had with various platoon members in Dad's Army
Originally Posted by JohnFlawbod:
“I see what you're saying roman but I still think that given CJ's appearance and character and the 1941 setting, the resolution of Nancy being Jamie's mother...all these so called issues grew from the fabric of the story being told. Now whether you (not you personally, but one) think CJ as a bisexual should not be introduced into a show like DW is just going to be a matter of taste in the end but every thing else seemed to fit...obviously I'm bias and for the record, just last week people were crying out for DW to have a little more edge to it and not be all farting aliens and special effects...well, I think they got their wish in "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances". I hope next week's is a cracking adventure plot without too much emphasis on the ills of nuclear energy to keep balance but if it's there, I'm sure there'll be a damn good story...as I've said, I have a totally irrational belief that the return of the Slitheen will be an improvement on AOL/WW3...”
“I see what you're saying roman but I still think that given CJ's appearance and character and the 1941 setting, the resolution of Nancy being Jamie's mother...all these so called issues grew from the fabric of the story being told. Now whether you (not you personally, but one) think CJ as a bisexual should not be introduced into a show like DW is just going to be a matter of taste in the end but every thing else seemed to fit...obviously I'm bias and for the record, just last week people were crying out for DW to have a little more edge to it and not be all farting aliens and special effects...well, I think they got their wish in "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances". I hope next week's is a cracking adventure plot without too much emphasis on the ills of nuclear energy to keep balance but if it's there, I'm sure there'll be a damn good story...as I've said, I have a totally irrational belief that the return of the Slitheen will be an improvement on AOL/WW3...”
In honesty with the show in general it has been non sexual for the most part for over 40 years. With the exception of flirting it still remained non sexual until last week. Which I think is sad, its in everything else why does it need to be in Doctor Who, Doctor Who is escapism by making a focus of sexuality and issues relating to sex it kind of makes it more sci-fi/soap/drama. Now whether Jack is a bisexual, or whether he is partial to a border collie is neither here nor there. All I'm getting at is we had 9ish weeks with no sexual juggling then tonight, there was a lot of sexual innuendos, comments that cannot be confusedas anything else, unless your one sandwich short of a picnic. If they want to make a point they could lay it out over several weeks. So questions dont need to revolve around one episode. Questions that I made in one point which people kept replying too for nearly 10 pages. Normally I raise a point and for the most part my comments are ignored. Today people read what I wrote. Some interpreted as me being victorian, so as me saying that different sexualities are wrong. I never implied either. I just said the issue was for the most part not needed, but if the writers wanted sexuality/sex related issues brought up then they could do over the course of the series!
Originally Posted by ludovica:
“As far as I was concerned there was no implication of anything sexual between the fat man and the butcher. I felt the implication was clear of a "private arrangement" concerning rations (illegal) such as Jonesy had with various platoon members in Dad's Army”
“As far as I was concerned there was no implication of anything sexual between the fat man and the butcher. I felt the implication was clear of a "private arrangement" concerning rations (illegal) such as Jonesy had with various platoon members in Dad's Army”
He was getting some extra pork from the butcher. Some people just see sexual innuendo in everything...
Originally Posted by ludovica:
“As far as I was concerned there was no implication of anything sexual between the fat man and the butcher. I felt the implication was clear of a "private arrangement" concerning rations (illegal) such as Jonesy had with various platoon members in Dad's Army”
“As far as I was concerned there was no implication of anything sexual between the fat man and the butcher. I felt the implication was clear of a "private arrangement" concerning rations (illegal) such as Jonesy had with various platoon members in Dad's Army”
Just like Pike's mum and his Uncle Arthur
*hides*
Anyway, is it not great news that the Cybermen are returning.
As a child, The cybermen to me were the best villains. I felt they had real menace, and some of the best storylines. I wonder how they will have evolved!
As a child, The cybermen to me were the best villains. I felt they had real menace, and some of the best storylines. I wonder how they will have evolved!
Originally Posted by romanwinecow:
“In honesty with the show in general it has been non sexual for the most part for over 40 years. With the exception of flirting it still remained non sexual until last week. Which I think is sad, its in everything else why does it need to be in Doctor Who, Doctor Who is escapism by making a focus of sexuality and issues relating to sex it kind of makes it more sci-fi/soap/drama. Now whether Jack is a bisexual, or whether he is partial to a border collie is neither here nor there. All I'm getting at is we had 9ish weeks with no sexual juggling then tonight, there was a lot of sexual innuendos, comments that cannot be confusedas anything else, unless your one sandwich short of a picnic. If they want to make a point they could lay it out over several weeks. So questions dont need to revolve around one episode. Questions that I made in one point which people kept replying too for nearly 10 pages. Normally I raise a point and for the most part my comments are ignored. Today people read what I wrote. Some interpreted as me being victorian, so as me saying that different sexualities are wrong. I never implied either. I just said the issue was for the most part not needed, but if the writers wanted sexuality/sex related issues brought up then they could do over the course of the series!”
“In honesty with the show in general it has been non sexual for the most part for over 40 years. With the exception of flirting it still remained non sexual until last week. Which I think is sad, its in everything else why does it need to be in Doctor Who, Doctor Who is escapism by making a focus of sexuality and issues relating to sex it kind of makes it more sci-fi/soap/drama. Now whether Jack is a bisexual, or whether he is partial to a border collie is neither here nor there. All I'm getting at is we had 9ish weeks with no sexual juggling then tonight, there was a lot of sexual innuendos, comments that cannot be confusedas anything else, unless your one sandwich short of a picnic. If they want to make a point they could lay it out over several weeks. So questions dont need to revolve around one episode. Questions that I made in one point which people kept replying too for nearly 10 pages. Normally I raise a point and for the most part my comments are ignored. Today people read what I wrote. Some interpreted as me being victorian, so as me saying that different sexualities are wrong. I never implied either. I just said the issue was for the most part not needed, but if the writers wanted sexuality/sex related issues brought up then they could do over the course of the series!”
If I understand the Production ethic of the series correctly there was an awful lot of experimentation going on because they really didn't know what was going to work in a modern day audience sense and what wasn't. I'd second guess that by introducing Captain Jack they were testing the water on this one and since the 1st part was building the story then the 2nd part was the one with the space to explore in depth. As I say, personally I didn't find any offence but I certainly identified the innuendos...every programme when new needs to find its strengths and its weaknesses and the fact that we're discussing this on here I find good for us and the programme and in spite of what another poster might think, this has been a pretty rational thread tonight if you excuse some of my more glaring attempts at levity which are a character fault I can't seem to shake
Originally Posted by JohnFlawbod:
“If I understand the Production ethic of the series correctly there was an awful lot of experimentation going on because they really didn't know what was going to work in a modern day audience sense and what wasn't. I'd second guess that by introducing Captain Jack they were testing the water on this one and since the 1st part was building the story then the 2nd part was the one with the space to explore in depth. As I say, personally I didn't find any offence but I certainly identified the innuendos...every programme when new needs to find its strengths and its weaknesses and the fact that we're discussing this on here I find good for us and the programme and in spite of what another poster might think, this has been a pretty rational thread tonight if you excuse some of my more glaring attempts at levity which are a character fault I can't seem to shake”
“If I understand the Production ethic of the series correctly there was an awful lot of experimentation going on because they really didn't know what was going to work in a modern day audience sense and what wasn't. I'd second guess that by introducing Captain Jack they were testing the water on this one and since the 1st part was building the story then the 2nd part was the one with the space to explore in depth. As I say, personally I didn't find any offence but I certainly identified the innuendos...every programme when new needs to find its strengths and its weaknesses and the fact that we're discussing this on here I find good for us and the programme and in spite of what another poster might think, this has been a pretty rational thread tonight if you excuse some of my more glaring attempts at levity which are a character fault I can't seem to shake
”
I agree whole heartedly, and although I have been under attack (to a certain degree) most of the night I have stayed here. Normally I post then go off and go back later but tonight I stayed. And its well past my bedtime, So I have just been told
Originally Posted by romanwinecow:
“Anyway, is it not great news that the Cybermen are returning.
As a child, The cybermen to me were the best villains. I felt they had real menace, and some of the best storylines. I wonder how they will have evolved!”
“Anyway, is it not great news that the Cybermen are returning.
As a child, The cybermen to me were the best villains. I felt they had real menace, and some of the best storylines. I wonder how they will have evolved!”
Especially since the sci-fi fans will be familiar with the concept of The Borg on Star Trek now which took the concept to an altogether higher level...
Originally Posted by romanwinecow:
“My point being in the great big post children ask "what does that mean?" As a responsible parent you tell them a truthful answer”
“My point being in the great big post children ask "what does that mean?" As a responsible parent you tell them a truthful answer”
No, you don't. You tell them an answer that is pitched towards their level of understanding. Here's a dilemma for you. Children swear at school. They do, trust me on this one. What will you do when one of your kids, when curiosity gets the better of them, asks you "what does f**K mean?", "What's a c**t?" Will you tell them the honest truth then? And didn't you ever tell them about Santa or the Tooth Fairy?
I'd also like to see another old enemy dug up, for the older viewrs with whom we have memories, the ice warriors for example, or the Sontarans, or even the Sea Devils. I was chuffed as punch when I heard that the Autons were in the first episode, but dissapointed when they took such a small influence over the show. They to me did not seem like that great a menace. A show I feel could have been dragged to a two part. Where as imo AOL should have been a one parter.
Originally Posted by big_gav2:
“No, you don't. You tell them an answer that is pitched towards their level of understanding. Here's a dilemma for you. Children swear at school. They do, trust me on this one. What will you do when one of your kids, when curiosity gets the better of them, asks you "what does f**K mean?", "What's a c**t?" Will you tell them the honest truth then? And didn't you ever tell them about Santa or the Tooth Fairy?”
“No, you don't. You tell them an answer that is pitched towards their level of understanding. Here's a dilemma for you. Children swear at school. They do, trust me on this one. What will you do when one of your kids, when curiosity gets the better of them, asks you "what does f**K mean?", "What's a c**t?" Will you tell them the honest truth then? And didn't you ever tell them about Santa or the Tooth Fairy?”
And going back to Santa...someone posted earlier but I got distracted...The Doctor was there when Rose got her bike aged 12? Or was that a throwaway lucky guess for humour's sake? Hmmm
Originally Posted by JohnFlawbod:
“And going back to Santa...someone posted earlier but I got distracted...The Doctor was there when Rose got her bike aged 12? Or was that a throwaway lucky guess for humour's sake? Hmmm”
“And going back to Santa...someone posted earlier but I got distracted...The Doctor was there when Rose got her bike aged 12? Or was that a throwaway lucky guess for humour's sake? Hmmm”
Just a throwaway, I thought.
Originally Posted by romanwinecow:
“I'd also like to see another old enemy dug up, for the older viewrs with whom we have memories, the ice warriors for example, or the Sontarans, or even the Sea Devils. I was chuffed as punch when I heard that the Autons were in the first episode, but dissapointed when they took such a small influence over the show. They to me did not seem like that great a menace. A show I feel could have been dragged to a two part. Where as imo AOL should have been a one parter.”
“I'd also like to see another old enemy dug up, for the older viewrs with whom we have memories, the ice warriors for example, or the Sontarans, or even the Sea Devils. I was chuffed as punch when I heard that the Autons were in the first episode, but dissapointed when they took such a small influence over the show. They to me did not seem like that great a menace. A show I feel could have been dragged to a two part. Where as imo AOL should have been a one parter.”
I only saw "Rose" once, I'd like to have seen the repeats because it did feel very rushed...I could have done with a cliffhanger two-parter and yes, AOL could have been a single ep in my opinion...although the pace of "Rose" did seem to pick up the new viewers, especially the younger ones and carry them with it so maybe I'm just old and took time to adjust to the pacing...
Originally Posted by big_gav2:
“No, you don't. You tell them an answer that is pitched towards their level of understanding. Here's a dilemma for you. Children swear at school. They do, trust me on this one. What will you do when one of your kids, when curiosity gets the better of them, asks you "what does f**K mean?", "What's a c**t?" Will you tell them the honest truth then? And didn't you ever tell them about Santa or the Tooth Fairy?”
“No, you don't. You tell them an answer that is pitched towards their level of understanding. Here's a dilemma for you. Children swear at school. They do, trust me on this one. What will you do when one of your kids, when curiosity gets the better of them, asks you "what does f**K mean?", "What's a c**t?" Will you tell them the honest truth then? And didn't you ever tell them about Santa or the Tooth Fairy?”
I always explain what things mean, but I tell them that they dont use such words. And explain why. In respect of Santa and The tooth Fairy I have never told any of my children that either exist.
In respect of the dual meaning stuff, why tell them a close alternate answer, they will only here the true answer the next day they go to school. So why lie?
Originally Posted by romanwinecow:
“I agree whole heartedly, and although I have been under attack (to a certain degree) most of the night I have stayed here. Normally I post then go off and go back later but tonight I stayed. And its well past my bedtime, So I have just been told”
“I agree whole heartedly, and although I have been under attack (to a certain degree) most of the night I have stayed here. Normally I post then go off and go back later but tonight I stayed. And its well past my bedtime, So I have just been told”
I've been here longer than I would have been too...so much longer that I've let the chip shop shut and have to go with out my supper
But it has been great to see someone keep by their points and principlas that they started with argument with, even though I really don't agree with them. I guess we'll just all have to keep on disagreeing and left's face, nothing much can be done now. The programme has been aired and is now virtualy 'set in stone'. Those of us who have no problem won't mind and those that do will have to hope the producers take on bored your worreis and feature less issues in each individual future epsiode
Originally Posted by JohnFlawbod:
“I only saw "Rose" once, I'd like to have seen the repeats because it did feel very rushed...I could have done with a cliffhanger two-parter and yes, AOL could have been a single ep in my opinion...although the pace of "Rose" did seem to pick up the new viewers, especially the younger ones and carry them with it so maybe I'm just old and took time to adjust to the pacing...”
“I only saw "Rose" once, I'd like to have seen the repeats because it did feel very rushed...I could have done with a cliffhanger two-parter and yes, AOL could have been a single ep in my opinion...although the pace of "Rose" did seem to pick up the new viewers, especially the younger ones and carry them with it so maybe I'm just old and took time to adjust to the pacing...”
At least your not the only old one
Originally Posted by Evil Eye:
“I've been here longer than I would have been too...so much longer that I've let the chip shop shut and have to go with out my supper
But it has been great to see someone keep by their points and principlas that they started with argument with, even though I really don't agree with them. I guess we'll just all have to keep on disagreeing and left's face, nothing much can be done now. The programme has been aired and is now virtualy 'set in stone'. Those of us who have no problem won't mind and those that do will have to hope the producers take on bored your worreis and feature less issues in each individual future epsiode”
“I've been here longer than I would have been too...so much longer that I've let the chip shop shut and have to go with out my supper
But it has been great to see someone keep by their points and principlas that they started with argument with, even though I really don't agree with them. I guess we'll just all have to keep on disagreeing and left's face, nothing much can be done now. The programme has been aired and is now virtualy 'set in stone'. Those of us who have no problem won't mind and those that do will have to hope the producers take on bored your worreis and feature less issues in each individual future epsiode
”
Sorry you missed your chips!
Actually i'm not, you mentioned them and now I want some!
Originally Posted by romanwinecow:
“I always explain what things mean, but I tell them that they dont use such words. And explain why. In respect of Santa and The tooth Fairy I have never told any of my children that either exist.
In respect of the dual meaning stuff, why tell them a close alternate answer, they will only here the true answer the next day they go to school. So why lie?”
“I always explain what things mean, but I tell them that they dont use such words. And explain why. In respect of Santa and The tooth Fairy I have never told any of my children that either exist.
In respect of the dual meaning stuff, why tell them a close alternate answer, they will only here the true answer the next day they go to school. So why lie?”
If that's the case, why are you getting so wound up about a couple of innuendos that most humans under the age of 14 wouldn't pick up upon then?
14 of 58
