Doctor Who

[Elomin Sha]

What's shown on that page wasn't in the episode. I don't see why they'd have different opening titles.

[Lord Hosk]

I was very disappointed in the special effects. There were several Green screen shots which looked on par with LRR shots.

I dont mean to disparage LRR, but they are a few friends with a few thousand dollars of equipment and a couple days to shoot and edit each video. Each episode of doctor who costs over a million dollars and is worked on by over a hundred people and takes weeks or months to create.

Also the BBC america "live show" before and after... Were prefilmed, the tweets they used were tweeted yesterday, which is odd because they created a #skinbaloon "live" and yet several accounts tweeted that hashtag yesterday. HMMM do they not know that the internet exists?

[AlexanderDitto]

I dislike the new opening credits, they just look like one of the dozens of semi-professional fan efforts you see on youtube.

Funny you should say that http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28871058

That is the most insipid article I've ever read.

The doctor is a Time Lord, he's not a Space Lord," Mr Hanshaw reasons

"A lot of people have said that cogs and clocks are an obvious metaphor to use. But if it's so obvious, why hasn't it be done before?"

Because it's stupid?

Hasn't the way the Time Vortex looks already been established? Why the heck would the TARDIS fall down a clock? Like... what? A clock covered in planets? It just seems... nonsensical.

All the new Who openings have shown the TARDIS traveling through time. Did this guy miss that memo?

WOW this episode had some clunky writing. Characters repeating questions multiple times. Cliched lecherous lesbians and a weird close-up mouth kiss. A slow, nonsense plot centered around... what? Clara being obsessed that The Doctor isn't young anymore? And an enemy we already saw and knew and dealt with? Victorian London. Again. AGAIN. Anywhere in Time and Space and we go to Victorian London, over and over.

The whole thing was trying. Clara is... nope. Horrendous. "The Doctor is simple" *immediately figures out the Doctor's message* *One scene later* "What kind of person puts a cryptic note in a newspaper advert?" Is he simple, or cryptic? Moffat just writes her being pissed off at The Doctor for the stupidest reasons the whole episode. Moffat's continues to write her into the worst, most one-dimensional, bickering bore. And then the Doctor calls her names. Self-centered. Egotistical. Uh... what? And then the Doctor abandons her? The Doctor would never do that.

"Times like this I miss Amy" no Doctor, times like this you'd miss Rose, or Martha, or Donna, or goddamn Sarah Jane Smith.

And all for... what? A plot where Moffat's trying to set up a parallel between the automata and The Doctor? With that reflection bit in the plate? Except the Doctor... doesn't change every part of himself. He retains his memories. So he's not really a different person.

Also: doesn't stuff that travels through the Time Vortex get seriously screwed up? How did a Dinosaur make it?

And the Automata can detect breathing, but not... movement? What is... I don't even.

I don't care. I'm not excited about this, honestly I have no desire to watch the rest of the season. I was hoping Capaldi could pull things out of the spiral that they've been in for me. He was good, but I don't think anything could save this really bad writing.

[PlasmaCow]

"Times like this I miss Amy" no Doctor, times like this you'd miss Rose, or Martha, or Donna, or goddamn Sarah Jane Smith.

Was a height gag I'm pretty sure.

I was very disappointed in the special effects. There were several Green screen shots which looked on par with LRR shots.

They also have a fixed budget, it's been mentioned before that Day of the Doctor was filmed on much the same budget as an average episode of the regular series, I imagine it was exactly the same here.

[AlexanderDitto]

"Times like this I miss Amy" no Doctor, times like this you'd miss Rose, or Martha, or Donna, or goddamn Sarah Jane Smith.

Was a height gag I'm pretty sure.

I was very disappointed in the special effects. There were several Green screen shots which looked on par with LRR shots.

They also have a fixed budget, it's been mentioned before that Day of the Doctor was filmed on much the same budget as an average episode of the regular series, I imagine it was exactly the same here.

I guess that's fair, could have been a height gag. I thought it was a "Clara is terrible at helping me out" comment. It just seemed mean-spirited.

---

If they have a fixed budget, maybe they shouldn't have blown so much of it on dinosaur special effects that, let's be honest, were completely irrelevant to the plot. The dinosaur was a complete red herring.

[Master Gunner]

I really like Capaldi as The Doctor, from what I saw in this episode.

The writing however, as Ditto pointed out, was terrible. So very, very, terrible.

[Robo4900]

I liked it. It had some stuff I didn't like, but I think it was good overall. Especially Peter Capaldi himself.
Not sure how I feel about the new titles.

I really like that Confidential has essentially returned in the form of 10-minute behind-the-scenes videos on iPlayer called "Doctor Who Extra".

More details on my opinions on the episode itself: I was half-expecting it to turn out that the ship and the robots are the same ones from Girl in the Fireplace and for the new Doctor to have not-so-great memories brought back from it.
Also, I liked the reference to Capaldi's face being familiar.
Another thing I'm not sure how I feel about, though, is Matt Smith's appearance in the episode. While it's normally nice to have that kind of thing(Kind of like in episode one of Star Trek TNG), I really didn't like Matt Smith as the Doctor; that scene both shows how much Matt Smith didn't fit the part of the Doctor, and how much of an improvement Peter Capaldi is. Seriously, I really like Capaldi's Doctor.

The next episode is called Into the Dalek. Looking forward to it.

[Lord Hosk]

"Times like this I miss Amy" no Doctor, times like this you'd miss Rose, or Martha, or Donna, or goddamn Sarah Jane Smith.

Was a height gag I'm pretty sure.

I was very disappointed in the special effects. There were several Green screen shots which looked on par with LRR shots.

They also have a fixed budget, it's been mentioned before that Day of the Doctor was filmed on much the same budget as an average episode of the regular series, I imagine it was exactly the same here.

I guess that's fair, could have been a height gag. I thought it was a "Clara is terrible at helping me out" comment. It just seemed mean-spirited.

---

If they have a fixed budget, maybe they shouldn't have blown so much of it on dinosaur special effects that, let's be honest, were completely irrelevant to the plot. The dinosaur was a complete red herring.

I get that they have a fixed budget, however their fixed budget is quite large. Also they green screened the doctor riding a horse through victorian londan, but it was obvious based on his posture that he was sitting on bench in front of a green screen. They had horses, they had a physical set, they had the doctor, yet they poorly did a FX shot instead.

I agree completely with Alexanderditto that the writing was bad.

If the only way the automoton detect people is by them breathing, and they lose them every time they hold their breath (suspends disbelief) why would you not exhale inhale exhale inhale, hold breath, move, exhale inhale, hold breath, move?

The whole "you didnt write this, I didnt write this, who did" bit was terrible, it was clunky and the actors didnt pull it off, not that they had anything to go off of.

Doctor who seems to be falling into the same trap as the entire sherlock series fell into, which make sense with a shared show runner, they say the characters are smart, so they must be. The brilliance of the doctor was that he took information and looked at it in a alien way to figure it out in a way that we the viewer wouldnt think to because he has a outside perspective. The brilliance of Sherlock Holmes is that he isnt distracted by things that typically distract and he can put together subtle clues
to form the steps.

Every time that Sherlock figures something out its a thing that we the viewers weren't shown. I will reference the first episode and the "phone" thing. we never see the phone, we never see the engraving, or the scratches. He isnt being "brilliant" he is just putting together obvious clues that we the viewers never got a chance to examine. Frequently he will solve the case by showing up and saying "while you were examining the crime scene and talking to the detective I noticed that there was a electronics store across the street that had a video camera shooting the street, so I went and got the video which shows the perpetrators face and their license plate number." We the viewers didnt even know there was a electronics store because it wasnt shown on camera.

In a similar manner in this doctor who episode the doctor and generic damsel in distress go into a restaurant and sit down, we later find out that its not a restaurant at all but automatons acting like they are eating. I thought it was strange that I didnt pick that up because when they showed it after the revelation it was quite obvious. So I went back, the automatons were not following their "repetitive actions" in earlier shots, and those that were acting 'correctly' were out of synch. There was a very clear, scrape screap clink spoon clink pattern after the doctor pointed it out, that pattern was not there beforehand.

Part of the greatness of shows like house (in the early episodes) and psych and other mystery detective type shows is that the main character or characters are given the information right along with the viewers. In house there are obvious red herrings and the misdiagnosis were understandable but they presented real, yet obscure, symptoms of real diseases with maybe a omission or a lie to throw a curve. Thats real diagnosis, thats a real mystery, people didnt walk in and say "I cant scratch my nose anymore" and the team spends 45 minutes running tests only to find out that the patient had their hands cut off in a accident but was suffering a memory loss, but they never showed the patients arms and missing hands. In a similar manner when shawn is doing his wrap up on psych he doesnt say "while you were looking at the body I went to the bar and asked the bartender what they saw and he gave me this knife with a big bloody finger print on it" he goes through the same shots we saw earlier and says "you missed this" and they highlight that the actor is actual doing that thing or the prop is sitting there.

There is a element of "experience" that sherlock and the doctor should have but they shouldn't just solve every problem with "oh I know that the females of this subsect of this race would never use a red fork while eating pasta, its against their code, so I deduced that it was actually a male from mars impersonating that other thing, look at me im brilliant." but when you look back the fork wasnt even red, and we would have no way of knowing anything about either species because they were new for this episode.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

I can sum up my thoughts (and probably everyone else's) like this:

Capaldi = Good
Moffat = Bad

[PlasmaCow]

In retrospect I've also decided I am now done with the Paternoster gang and would be happy to never see them again, unless it was to be their final appearance - preferably not in Victorian London.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

Truth be told, I've been missing the more science fiction-y settings from the Tennant era. The "dark fairy-tale" stuff from the Smith era was really beginning to wear thin for me.

One can hope...

[Master Gunner]

Agreed. Historical settings are great every now and then, but there's so much more to the universe out there, and that's what I want to see.

As much as I enjoy the Paternoster Gang, they do feel a bit overused at this point. Either give them their own mini/spinoff series (with a different head writer) or end their "arc". It should be a nice surprise when they show up, not every few episodes.

[Robo4900]

There should definitely be more of the space/future stuff rather than the historic earth stuff that Moffat tends to stick to.

Also, I do agree that the Victorian-era gang do need to be in less episodes. It is nice to see them, but it should only be once per season at the most, since they are starting to go a little stale.

[Lord Hosk]

"im your wife not your maid, lets kiss"

[Antitonic]

Was anyone else reminded of a previous episode by the garden at the end? I'm thinking of S6's "The Girl Who Waited". It could just be a re-use of sets (if it's the same at all), and it has been a while since I've seen it to double-check, but you never know...

[Ad Vurt]

It is the same set. The BBC always reuse sets and costumes, they don't have a very large budget!

[AlexanderDitto]

I agree completely with Alexanderditto that the writing was bad.

*snip*

Hosk is smart and I agree with everything he says.

Also, Anthony Birch made a horrifyingly astute observation on twitter that I think I agree with: the Doctor acted like an abusive boyfriend toward Clara. "Leaving w/o explaining where he's going, randomly abandoning her without saying why, expecting HER to be worty of HIM"

He also berates her and calls her names for something she didn't do (the newspaper ad) and chides her for not being good at doing something she had no reason to be good at (catching a screwdriver while tied to a chair?) as well as not noticing something she literally could not have noticed (the clockwork people, as Hosk pointed out, were not acting that way when they entered).

[Master Gunner]

Just got caught up on the second episode. Capaldi still intrigues me, and overall the writing was a bit better I thought (both Moffat and Phil Ford (who co-wrote Waters of Mars) have writing credits on this one). Still no clue where they're going with the season arc, so it could be good or it good be bad.

I look forward to the next episode, which is a Gatiss one. I don't tend to be the biggest fan of his episodes, but they're not bad.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

I do try to avoid reading comments about Doctor Who because they're polarising, as everything on the internet is.
But I guess, neutral remarks aren't interesting.

I enjoyed the last two episodes. I'm not sure how one tells of bad writing or good writing. I can identify where the story is heading due to clichés or formula, but is seeing this indicative of bad writing?

I know when a new female character is introduced and they could easily be Riversong, that's bad character writing. Do we get this with male characters though? Not that it matters since when you start shifting the light onto males, you make it a problem about male representation as oppose to female. Especially since the current climate in a "traditionally male interest" area is focusing on equality of all genders now.

[AlexanderDitto]

I do try to avoid reading comments about Doctor Who because they're polarising, as everything on the internet is.
But I guess, neutral remarks aren't interesting.

I enjoyed the last two episodes. I'm not sure how one tells of bad writing or good writing. I can identify where the story is heading due to clichés or formula, but is seeing this indicative of bad writing?

I know when a new female character is introduced and they could easily be Riversong, that's bad character writing. Do we get this with male characters though? Not that it matters since when you start shifting the light onto males, you make it a problem about male representation as oppose to female. Especially since the current climate in a "traditionally male interest" area is focusing on equality of all genders now.

Here's an easy way to identify one aspect of bad character writing that Moffat suffers from. Think of a character, and the actions that character takes. Now ask, "why is this person acting this way? Does this make sense? Is it consistent with how they've acted before?"

If you can't figure out why the person is acting the way they are, the character is not three-dimensional. The writer is just using them as a prop to move the plot along (and, as you point out, Doctor Who recently hasn't had the strongest plots. You can usually figure out where things are going, so if the characters are threadbare and boring, the show falls apart).

I haven't watched the second episode (and I don't really want to) so I can only speak about the first. But take anything that happens in that episode and ask, "why is this person doing this?" I for one can never come up with any non-plot related reason for characters to be acting the way they do.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

Maybe the character behaves differently under certain circumstances.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

I actually think that Moffat managed to do some things very right with characterization in this episode - specifically with a certain new guy called Mr. Pink.

How long was that dude on screen? Five minutes, maybe? He's already received more proper characterization and establishment than Clara has to date. He's someone you want to empathize with, there are hints at a deep personality, and his actions are consistent with the (brief) look that we got at his psychology. And it's clear that he's being introduced as a means to create character conflict on two levels - both with Clara (by being a potential romantic interest) and with the Doctor because of his dislike for [SPOILER].

Sure, that conflict might have been presented in a pretty ham-handed way (mostly for the way that the Doctor's dislike of [SPOILER] was introduced rather than anything about Pink's character), but, at this point, any attempt to introduce character conflict is absolutely welcome.

So, yeah... cautiously optimistic, here. Especially as regards Pink.

[AlexanderDitto]

Maybe the character behaves differently under certain circumstances.

If they do, you should be able to figure out why.

If Mr. Bean suddenly started acting like Pee-wee Herman sometimes for absolutely no reason, that's bad writing. If Mr. Bean started acting like Pee-wee Herman because he had too much coffee, OK, fine, enjoy your fanfiction.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

=)

[Robo4900]

I do try to avoid reading comments about Doctor Who because they're polarising, as everything on the internet is.
But I guess, neutral remarks aren't interesting.

The problem with people's opinions on the internet is that if someone dislikes something you like, it's not nice to see something you like ripped into/apart by someone, and if they like something you dislike, you feel the urge to disagree with them and become the cause of the previous situation. It's only when you find someone you agree with that you can be happy.

Anyway, I sympathise with your this; I actually have liked these two episodes. The second one more than the first one, but again, I still liked them. Unfortunately, all the Internet has to say about it is "Moffat = sux0rz" or "Doctor Who = sux0rz", so...