Doctor Who

As much as I enjoyed it tonight it didn’t feel like Dr Who in as much that she lacks the gravitas of Dr Who and was more akin to a live action Scooby Doo or somesuch.

Was well impressed with the special effects.
 
sure I had seen that hotel before - I was waiting for the spider to break the door down with an axe - "here comes Johnny"
topical - "Your'e that bloke" - yes I'm Philip Green - some resemblance ?

The old doctor would have called on, was it the commander, and his army unit .. but now we have the pacifist doctor.

gravitas ... yes, used to tune in to see Capaldis delivery of lines, always felt like he was channeling Malcom Tucker, but her personna, beyond the Mary Poppins aura, is light weight so far.
 
Feel this episode is better than the last three storywise, but...

Yeah, do we REALLY need another random reference to a woman married to another woman thrown out randomly in the episode? Does it even add to the story? Fairly certain you could have had her say "I'm a supporter of Princess Di over Charles". Or anything else: "I love puppies", "Do cats really have nine lives?", etc. And it simply wouldn't have changed the story one single bit. And that's when you know you have a pointless line that's put in purely for gratification only. And really should have been cut.
 
Clearly you have problems with lesbians then.

Or people bringing up diversity, I just watch and enjoy the stories and don't even think about those things as I find it normal for them to be talked about or for people to be a different colour without being bothered.

Did not really enjoy the episode, however I do have a huge dear fear of spiders.
 
steve5424 said:
Clearly you have problems with lesbians then.

Or people bringing up diversity
Click to expand...

Wow. Strawman much? WHERE did I write or infer anything like what you're saying?

Again, watch that scene again. ANYTHING could have replaced what they said. And it would not have changed the story one single bit. Therefore, what was the purpose of that sentence other than for the gratification of the writers simply putting that in the face of viewers? To push that message?

Why not something like:

"I'm married to your 14 year old nephew."?

Is it because it offends our sensibilities as Westerners since legal age for marriage is 16 here with parents permission? Or is it simply because you are not open to people who don't see this as a problem? Or in the case of Doctor Who, if done in an episode set in the past (where age for marriage was much more relaxed), would THAT be an issue for that time period when it was normal?

Or again, as what I wrote previously. They could have had that actress say "anything" at all there, and it wouldn't have made one bit of difference to the entire story. So why include it other than to shove it in viewers faces? And if so, do we REALLY need it shoved in our faces so often? THAT is what I'm offended over, not the content, but how often it's shoved in our faces and done in such a pointless fashion. I'd love it if it was done well, part of the story (like in episode 2 at least, so I gave it a pass, but it wasn't done well), but as a throw away line that could have been anything else? Not worthy to be a part of a show like Doctor Who.
 
On the one hand, I love a good sci-fi romp, and the quality of just how it looks it really excellent this series so far, and generally speaking, the stories have been ok.

On the other hand, a group of mainly ethnic women run around being brave and strong and intelligent while a white male blowhard acts entitled after also oppressing a brave and moral (and completely unnecessary) lesbian.

Come on BBC, I'm TRYING to like new Who but you're making it REALLY hard !!

.

Also JW still has no screen presence.
 
I can't be bothered to watch it if it's shoving agendas down viewers throats. So this may have been explained. But did they ever say why the Doctor could regenerate more than the original 12 times?
 
I dont really know what it is about this series, I actually felt that the Captain Jack sexuality was done really well, with some good comedic moments even. It fit, it blended well, was very well done. Sometimes in this series however, it does feel a little shoe-horned in or forced. Not sure why that is.

Overall though, I think my main gripe with this series is much the same as others have mentioned, its the complete nondescriptness of JWs Doctor. She is just terribly bland, for the main character, the titular character of a show, there is indeed just no presence. Maybe that will come with time, IF time is given.
 
Still not overwhelmed with the series.

One thing that did strike me as odd. Why was the American allowed to carry a gun. It's not like there wasn't even a police officer on scene to arrest him for illegal possession of a firearm. Made the ending even more silly. Glossed over much ...
 
This was the first episode where the writing was starting to get into the realms of full blown SJW when it didn't need it.

Surprised that they got Chris Noth to appear not the usual type of show he does.
 
Tombstone said:
I dont really know what it is about this series, I actually felt that the Captain Jack sexuality was done really well
Click to expand...
good point,
maybe they should have payed more attention to the diversity of the writers, Russell T, and for sure, Mr Barrowman, had helped;
although Torchwood was for older viewers too, so more luxury for natural adult expression.
seems Malorie Blackman was co-writer w/chris for Rosa.

"What are you again ? I'm your nieces's wife, sir. Exactly"
 
Moonpie2 said:
On the other hand, a group of mainly ethnic women run around being brave and strong and intelligent while a white male blowhard acts entitled after also oppressing a brave and moral (and completely unnecessary) lesbian.
Click to expand...
Where do they get this stuff from, right? They could at least try and ground it in reality....
 
Meddling-Monk said:
Wow. Strawman much? WHERE did I write or infer anything like what you're saying?

Again, watch that scene again. ANYTHING could have replaced what they said. And it would not have changed the story one single bit. Therefore, what was the purpose of that sentence other than for the gratification of the writers simply putting that in the face of viewers? To push that message?

Why not something like:

"I'm married to your 14 year old nephew."?

Is it because it offends our sensibilities as Westerners since legal age for marriage is 16 here with parents permission? Or is it simply because you are not open to people who don't see this as a problem? Or in the case of Doctor Who, if done in an episode set in the past (where age for marriage was much more relaxed), would THAT be an issue for that time period when it was normal?

Or again, as what I wrote previously. They could have had that actress say "anything" at all there, and it wouldn't have made one bit of difference to the entire story. So why include it other than to shove it in viewers faces? And if so, do we REALLY need it shoved in our faces so often? THAT is what I'm offended over, not the content, but how often it's shoved in our faces and done in such a pointless fashion. I'd love it if it was done well, part of the story (like in episode 2 at least, so I gave it a pass, but it wasn't done well), but as a throw away line that could have been anything else? Not worthy to be a part of a show like Doctor Who.
Click to expand...
We spent an entire 2 or three scenes watching a normal nuclear family doing normal family ****, but one line about a non-traditional relationship is a "shove in viewers faces"?!

Surely it's just being inclusive to its wide audience?
 
cheesyboy said:
Where do they get this stuff from, right? They could at least try and ground it in reality....
Click to expand...

I realise you're being sarcastic, but you're right. Having it based in reality would be fine.
But this wasn't. Want proof?
Flip the genders and ethnicities around and suddenly you have letters sent into Points of View and an apology from the BBC even though it would still be 'realistic'.

There's grounding in reality and then there's having the pendulum swing SO far in the direction of inclusivity that it becomes blindly obvious what's happening on a creative level.
 
Moonpie2 said:
I realise you're being sarcastic, but you're right. Having it based in reality would be fine.
But this wasn't. Want proof?
Flip the genders and ethnicities around and suddenly you have letters sent into Points of View and an apology from the BBC even though it would still be 'realistic'.

There's grounding in reality and then there's having the pendulum swing SO far in the direction of inclusivity that it becomes blindly obvious what's happening on a creative level.
Click to expand...
You realise the american dude was literally riffing on Trump? And Trump is literally a white male blowhard who likes to oppress those different to him?

Flipping the roles, it's hard to see how that's more realistic, and it certainly wouldn't be so relevant. And we'd still have people in this thread complaining about all the dark faces and 'in-your-face' homosexuality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom