|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Nov 11, 2018 18:53:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pazzer on Nov 11, 2018 20:56:27 GMT
Initially was the most excited for this series have been since it was announced Doctor Who was coming back. But as it got closer to air date nothing really hooked me and was considering giving it a miss.
Jodie is amazing and is defiantly the Doctor but there's nothing that really sets her Doctor apart from the others. But I think that's just a modern Who thing. As to me they blend together a bit unlike the ones I grew up with that have some characteristic that sets them apart.
Companions seem fine though I don't like that character development like getting used to time travel is been done off screen. With the exception of Rosa the episodes have been safe though have enjoyed them and for the first time in a while am excited to watch the next episode live.
It must be doing something right as my Grandma and Mum who haven't watched for years are back watching.
|
|
|
Post by kinghumble on Nov 12, 2018 18:36:19 GMT
The... FEELS... The FEELS!!!
|
|
|
Post by stcoop on Dec 5, 2018 16:25:31 GMT
So as we come to the end of the series my feelings haven't really changed.
No problems with the cast beyond the fact that there's too many to properly develop them and that includes the Doctor. (How great would a series of just Jodie and Bradley been?)
I understand and appreciate (in theory) the decision to majorly overhaul the style of the series and types of stories being told but don't feel that it's worked for me a lot of the time.
And while the Ratings remain better than last series, there's no ignoring that they still haven't reached their bottom level, coupled with consistently lower AI across the board. Hopefully that will prompt a bit of a rethink for the direction of the next series. It doesn't need to be on the level of the changes between Capaldi's first and second/third series but maybe some more focus on being entertaining and less on being worthy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 18:01:07 GMT
I think, rightly or wrongly, the show has re-established itself as a more gentle version of what we enjoyed in recent history. Nothing wrong with that, but perhaps they - at least for the first half of the series - went too far in that direction. The regulars characters are very well written, I think, and eminently likeable. I might argue that they have more appeal than Clara or Amy before them. They are real.
The 'gentle' approach means that when big boys, like the Daleks, do eventually appear, they will have a bigger impact than might otherwise have been the case. If they come back next year, it will be the first time they've had a story to themselves since 2015's series opener (subsequent cameos excluded)- four years. That should guarantee a Radio Times cover. In effect, the show can start rolling out the big bads again from scratch.
Ratings? Well, I expected about 5.5 million overnights for The Woman Who Fell to Earth, so 8.2 was a bombshell. To now have reached the 5 millions is, of itself, nothing to worry about, but I can't help but feel sad there has been a constant drifting away of viewers by the week. Looking back, this series' consolidated figures will be mainly 7 millions - some above, some slightly below - so no real worries, and fine foundations on which to build.
I feel this series has improved over the weeks. It started well but settled into a patchy groove, mostly due, I'm sorry to say, to Chris Chibnall's episodes. Mind you, they have rated the highest. The last three weeks have been electric. I'm pretty optimistic about the future. If both CC and Jodie leave next year - I don't think they will - then they're leaving a somewhat rejuvenated, pretty strong show to place into the hands of new showrunner Ed Hime. Well, you never know!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 18:30:40 GMT
Ratings & AI are meaningless to me & my enjoyment, or otherwise, of the show. So far I have liked more episodes than I have disliked. But I will reserve judgment until the season is over when I will give my full verdict. However, one thing I can say, I am glad that it has lost the fan-service heavy plots of the predominantly awful Capalidi era, moved away from being obsessed with its own mythology & the idea that Doctor Who is some kind of legendary hero that needs to remind us all the time with lengthy self-aggrandizing speeches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 19:35:58 GMT
I've really dug the last two eps which will push the season average wayyyy higher than when I last commented. I think a lot of my issues still stand...but they don't seem to matter too much. I'm enjoying what I'm seeing. I don't think much of it will ever be "my" Who (bar Alan Cumming, the frog, Graham and every second of Punjab) but it'll still be a really solid, fun version of the show I love.
I will say this though...looking at the credits, ALL of the non solo-Chibnall eps will be at the bottom of my rankings unless this week knocks it out the park. He's really not done much to dissuade me of the notion that he's just not a great writer of Who. You can say what you will about RTD and Moff but their highs were really high. Still to see that from CC, or even a real hint at it.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Dec 5, 2018 22:36:10 GMT
My feeling right now: "only one more? ONE!? ****. ************!"
I know they made the eps longer, but give us 3 extra surprise episodes or something. I've never been happier to have been proven completely, utterly, and hopelessly wrong about something.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Dec 5, 2018 22:42:13 GMT
I think, rightly or wrongly, the show has re-established itself as a more gentle version of what we enjoyed in recent history. Nothing wrong with that, but perhaps they - at least for the first half of the series - went too far in that direction. The regulars characters are very well written, I think, and eminently likeable. I might argue that they have more appeal than Clara or Amy before them. They are real. The 'gentle' approach means that when big boys, like the Daleks, do eventually appear, they will have a bigger impact than might otherwise have been the case. If they come back next year, it will be the first time they've had a story to themselves since 2015's series opener (subsequent cameos excluded)- four years. That should guarantee a Radio Times cover. In effect, the show can start rolling out the big bads again from scratch. Ratings? Well, I expected about 5.5 million overnights for The Woman Who Fell to Earth, so 8.2 was a bombshell. To now have reached the 5 millions is, of itself, nothing to worry about, but I can't help but feel sad there has been a constant drifting away of viewers by the week. Looking back, this series' consolidated figures will be mainly 7 millions - some above, some slightly below - so no real worries, and fine foundations on which to build. I feel this series has improved over the weeks. It started well but settled into a patchy groove, mostly due, I'm sorry to say, to Chris Chibnall's episodes. Mind you, they have rated the highest. The last three weeks have been electric. I'm pretty optimistic about the future. If both CC and Jodie leave next year - I don't think they will - then they're leaving a somewhat rejuvenated, pretty strong show to place into the hands of new showrunner Ed Hime. Well, you never know!
I'm not entirely sure about the opening few lines, in terms of gentleness.
It definitely feels a lot more like prior Who to me than the Moffat era did. It feels like it tends not to go for as many gags or things that seem clever but only because the ball has been hidden when it's really being made up on the fly. And while we haven't had an "Amy's Choice" or "The Girl Who Waited" (two episodes that I think rather dispel the notion that this is simply a kid's show, not that you said it), Punjab got heavy. Witchfinders got heavy.
I mean...a brother killing a brother during an actual part of history? Murdering innocent old women in front of their granddaughters for selfish reasons during a fictional part of history that was only really fictional in terms of the alien business? That's not gentle.
And neither was Amy & the Doctor committing suicide because maybe a version of reality was real (query whether the Doctor actually knew....but then ignore it and focus on the fact that Amy didn't care), or a husband choosing which version of his wife to kill or damn, alternately.
None of that is gentle, imo. In fact, for me, the concepts hit a lot harder than merely a bunch of gratuitous blood and gore in some horror film. The latter is silly. The former digs deep.
For me this season hasn't been gentler, but instead, lacks pointless flash & bang effects/moments/plot diversions that I found so obnoxious from S6-9. I think S5 and S10 hit the right notes, and I haven't been as excited since I was when I discovered that there even was more Who back in 2010 or 2011, and immediately watched S1-S5 over a few days while being so "sick" that I couldn't come into work.
/whistles innocently
Then stumbling on BF when I tried to find out if there was any other Who between 1989 and 2005. I love Chibnall's new direction (and I also continue to wonder why I keep typing "Chinball", then having to correct it; a different matter)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 23:15:07 GMT
I'm not entirely sure about the opening few lines, in terms of gentleness.
It definitely feels a lot more like prior Who to me than the Moffat era did. It feels like it tends not to go for as many gags or things that seem clever but only because the ball has been hidden when it's really being made up on the fly. And while we haven't had an "Amy's Choice" or "The Girl Who Waited" (two episodes that I think rather dispel the notion that this is simply a kid's show, not that you said it), Punjab got heavy. Witchfinders got heavy.
I mean...a brother killing a brother during an actual part of history? Murdering innocent old women in front of their granddaughters for selfish reasons during a fictional part of history that was only really fictional in terms of the alien business? That's not gentle.
And neither was Amy & the Doctor committing suicide because maybe a version of reality was real (query whether the Doctor actually knew....but then ignore it and focus on the fact that Amy didn't care), or a husband choosing which version of his wife to kill or damn, alternately.
None of that is gentle, imo. In fact, for me, the concepts hit a lot harder than merely a bunch of gratuitous blood and gore in some horror film. The latter is silly. The former digs deep.
For me this season hasn't been gentler, but instead, lacks pointless flash & bang effects/moments/plot diversions that I found so obnoxious from S6-9. I think S5 and S10 hit the right notes, and I haven't been as excited since I was when I discovered that there even was more Who back in 2010 or 2011, and immediately watched S1-S5 over a few days while being so "sick" that I couldn't come into work.
/whistles innocently
Then stumbling on BF when I tried to find out if there was any other Who between 1989 and 2005. I love Chibnall's new direction (and I also continue to wonder why I keep typing "Chinball", then having to correct it; a different matter)
I feel that it is the characters that cause me to use the word 'gentle' more than anything else. Despite the tensions underlining Ryan and Graham's relationship, there is no abrasiveness, no nasty and unnecessary put-downs or moments of knee-jerk fractiousness displayed by Amy or Clara or even Bill on occasions. The characters are more relatable and easier to like.
That's not to say there haven't been moments of shock in this series, but these are rare and therefore stand out. The direction and visuals, it seems to me at least, tend to focus on some outstanding locations rather than, as you say, flash and bang moments. They are still there, but again, only when the drama demands it. The camera is happy to pan across a forest or suchlike, rather than jump around frantically in a bid to add 'pace.'
A positive I have picked up from people is that this series is 'so easy to watch'. A negative I have picked up is that it 'lacks depth.' Both of these are partly true, I think. 'Easy to watch' is perhaps as much a phrase that sums up my feelings about this series - or maybe 'easier to watch' - as much as its 'gentle' qualities (a trait that stretches to The Doctor herself, with her lack of theatrics and grand-standing).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2018 0:40:12 GMT
I'm not entirely sure about the opening few lines, in terms of gentleness.
It definitely feels a lot more like prior Who to me than the Moffat era did. It feels like it tends not to go for as many gags or things that seem clever but only because the ball has been hidden when it's really being made up on the fly. And while we haven't had an "Amy's Choice" or "The Girl Who Waited" (two episodes that I think rather dispel the notion that this is simply a kid's show, not that you said it), Punjab got heavy. Witchfinders got heavy.
I mean...a brother killing a brother during an actual part of history? Murdering innocent old women in front of their granddaughters for selfish reasons during a fictional part of history that was only really fictional in terms of the alien business? That's not gentle.
And neither was Amy & the Doctor committing suicide because maybe a version of reality was real (query whether the Doctor actually knew....but then ignore it and focus on the fact that Amy didn't care), or a husband choosing which version of his wife to kill or damn, alternately.
None of that is gentle, imo. In fact, for me, the concepts hit a lot harder than merely a bunch of gratuitous blood and gore in some horror film. The latter is silly. The former digs deep.
For me this season hasn't been gentler, but instead, lacks pointless flash & bang effects/moments/plot diversions that I found so obnoxious from S6-9. I think S5 and S10 hit the right notes, and I haven't been as excited since I was when I discovered that there even was more Who back in 2010 or 2011, and immediately watched S1-S5 over a few days while being so "sick" that I couldn't come into work.
/whistles innocently
Then stumbling on BF when I tried to find out if there was any other Who between 1989 and 2005. I love Chibnall's new direction (and I also continue to wonder why I keep typing "Chinball", then having to correct it; a different matter)
I feel that it is the characters that cause me to use the word 'gentle' more than anything else. Despite the tensions underlining Ryan and Graham's relationship, there is no abrasiveness, no nasty and unnecessary put-downs or moments of knee-jerk fractiousness displayed by Amy or Clara or even Bill on occasions. The characters are more relatable and easier to like.
That's not to say there haven't been moments of shock in this series, but these are rare and therefore stand out. The direction and visuals, it seems to me at least, tend to focus on some outstanding locations rather than, as you say, flash and bang moments. They are still there, but again, only when the drama demands it. The camera is happy to pan across a forest or suchlike, rather than jump around frantically in a bid to add 'pace.'
A positive I have picked up from people is that this series is 'so easy to watch'. A negative I have picked up is that it 'lacks depth.' Both of these are partly true, I think. 'Easy to watch' is perhaps as much a phrase that sums up my feelings about this series - or maybe 'easier to watch' - as much as its 'gentle' qualities (a trait that stretches to The Doctor herself, with her lack of theatrics and grand-standing). Now that you mention the gentleness, it's an interesting side effect I'm noticing more and more in television as things move forward. Characters have become noticeably more supportive over the past couple of years. Openly supportive. It feels much more common for the principles to sit down and have a heart-to-heart about things. Abrasive relationships are treated much less like the norm and more as Something's up... We should investigate. It's a lead-up to a character revelation more than the status quo these days. This feels like a very comfortable team, so much so that it makes me wonder what it must be like travelling aboard the TARDIS between adventures. I can just see this incarnation being the "build a motorcycle in the bedroom" type; if you need her, she'll be in the workshop. Probably working on half a dozen different projects at once. "It's a rocket! ...eventually? Maybe an ornithopter? I'll know when I get there. Mystery surprise."
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Dec 6, 2018 11:52:37 GMT
I feel like a lot of my thoughts align with Wolfie, paz and mr, so there's not a whole lot more I could add.
That said, I think, on top of the greater the casual appeal, I think this series was also an important stress test for the basic concept of Who. Take away all the lore and pomp & circumstance: can the core idea of Who, a family friendly time-travel sci-fi adventure series that can also educate, still thrive and entertain in the modern TV landscape? Thus far, the answer seems to be yes.
|
|
|
Post by Bazoolium on Dec 6, 2018 12:22:03 GMT
Doctor Who has changed and is appealing to a more casual audience again, that can only be a good thing. There's not enough of us long term nutters to keep the ratings up. We're getting types of stories that the show hasn't tried to tell in a very long time, if ever and it's great to see history being used for the plot rather than just a setting.
For me though, there is something missing. I like that Doctor Who is often a show focused on ideas. Even if its ideas usually outstrip its ability to visualise them. It Takes You Away had about three episodes worth of ideas, whereas I think that stories early in the series barely had one.
I've enjoyed myself this year, but perhaps not as much as I have with other series.
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Dec 6, 2018 13:01:16 GMT
Doctor Who has changed and is appealing to a more casual audience again, that can only be a good thing. There's not enough of us long term nutters to keep the ratings up. We're getting types of stories that the show hasn't tried to tell in a very long time, if ever and it's great to see history being used for the plot rather than just a setting. For me though, there is something missing. I like that Doctor Who is often a show focused on ideas. Doctor Who always been a show where its ideas have outstripped its ability to visualise them. It Takes You Away had about three episodes worth of ideas, whereas I think that stories early in the series barely had one. I've enjoyed myself this year, but perhaps not as much as I have with other series. I could not have said it any better.
Although, having experienced it at Comic Con recently, you would be amazed how many of us "nutters" are actually out there...
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Dec 7, 2018 10:52:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Dec 8, 2018 0:56:03 GMT
Now, something which has not come up all that much (mostly because the writing complaints seem exclusively directed to Chris) are the script editors. As discussed elsewhere, modern script editors are not much like the Classic Who ones, who were closer to co-showrunners. Modern s.editing is more of a technical role than a creative one, primarily to proofread, give notes and liase with production so that the story is actually filmmable on the time and budget available.
Our team this year is Fiona McAllister and her senior, Sheena Bucktowonsing. Their credits are fairly brief: Fiona did Emmerdale for three years (the last of which was as an s.e), while Sheena came out of two kids shows, Dinopaws and Jamilah & Aladdin. That combination might help explain certain creative decisions in the end product, like the greater emphasis on exposition, more cutesy moments of characterisation and writing, 13's more back-to basic, almost simplified morality.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Dec 13, 2018 11:07:36 GMT
Don't know how many have seen this, but there's a Dallas school that's been doing class reviews of the episodes, and the series writers have been retweeting them.
|
|