|
Post by mrperson on Oct 5, 2016 16:13:47 GMT
I don't know. It didn't strike me as anything new, rather, a simple importation of hubris into a companion. It just took the usual trope a little farther. That is, companion decides that ignoring the Doctor and wandering off is normal, does so, and furthers the plot by requiring rescue.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Oct 5, 2016 16:15:25 GMT
Anyway, one major thing I'd do is require that all scripts be finalized before filming starts in a given year. If multiple-year character developments are to exist, they must be fleshed out before they begin and are stuck to.
Additionally, the head writer/etc would only have responsibility over Who - pay them more if necessary - but none of this split devotion between to major shows (ie, Sherlock and Who)
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Oct 5, 2016 20:25:54 GMT
Doctor Who is fundamentally about the fact that magic lives in the universe and that it should be explored and I don't think RTD ever understood that with a good majority of his episodes taking place on Earth/in the orbit of Earth/New Earth and depicting the Doctor as almost human. I don't know I just think the era is the most overrated era of Doctor Who and that it was so stuck in trying to be a modern show that it forgets just how boundless the format of Doctor Who is. Science! Not magic!
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Oct 5, 2016 21:18:45 GMT
Well of course, sciency-wiency... I'm sure no one was suggesting letting the Prydonians fraternize with the Gryffindors
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on Oct 7, 2016 20:43:12 GMT
Hello again. The thing that upset me most in NuWho was Hell Bent. That moment when he shoots another Timelord. I think that I totally blew apart fifty years of stating that he is never cruel or cowardly. I consider this is Moffat's worst act as writer. Yes the Doctor is a pragmatist and has used violence as a last resort but this particularly when you look at previous NuWho Doctors attitudes to using guns. 9th in Parting of the Ways and 10th in the Doctor's Daughter. In that act the Doctor is indistinguishable from that other Time lord action hero, James Bond.
|
|
|
Post by icecreamdf on Oct 8, 2016 1:57:16 GMT
Hello again. The thing that upset me most in NuWho was Hell Bent. That moment when he shoots another Timelord. I think that I totally blew apart fifty years of stating that he is never cruel or cowardly. I consider this is Moffat's worst act as writer. Yes the Doctor is a pragmatist and has used violence as a last resort but this particularly when you look at previous NuWho Doctors attitudes to using guns. 9th in Parting of the Ways and 10th in the Doctor's Daughter. In that act the Doctor is indistinguishable from that other Time lord action hero, James Bond. The whole point of the episode was that it was about what it took to make the Doctor become cruel and cowardly. Ohila even said that word for word. His best friend was killed, and he was tortured for billions of years. In the end, he realized that he went too far, and that's why he had to forget Clara.
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on Oct 8, 2016 10:04:20 GMT
Hello again. Still didn't like it. I felt that whole episode was for me, contrary to Doctor Who's ethos and a major mistake. Unlike the Doctor, I cannot forget. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on Oct 8, 2016 10:31:46 GMT
Hello again. I've just remembered something. Bringing back Clara for episode 12 after her tragic final hour in Trap Street was also an error in my book. Clara's death and the subsequent episode were memorable as they were unusual. The events in Hell Bent blunted the impact of the two episodes to the point they almost made them irrelevant. What is the point in giving such a tragic and realistic exit if you are going to resurrect them later and have them charging round the universe in their own TARDIS? I found Hell Bent to be a very disappointing end to a variable season. Sorry series 9 fans but while I like Capaldi. I've not enjoyed many of his stories or much of Series 8 either. Light the blue touch paper and stand back...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 11:02:24 GMT
Hello again. I've just remembered something. Bringing back Clara for episode 12 after her tragic final hour in Trap Street was also an error in my book. Clara's death and the subsequent episode were memorable as they were unusual. The events in Hell Bent blunted the impact of the two episodes to the point they almost made them irrelevant. What is the point in giving such a tragic and realistic exit if you are going to resurrect them later and have them charging round the universe in their own TARDIS? I found Hell Bent to be a very disappointing end to a variable season. Sorry series 9 fans but while I like Capaldi. I've not enjoyed many of his stories or much of Series 8 either. Light the blue touch paper and stand back... Agreed. I've really enjoyed what Capaldi has tried to do in the role of the Twelfth Doctor, but the stories themselves have been very much hit ( Heaven Sent) or miss ( Time Heist). Mostly miss for me personally. If I were recommending this most recent of seasons to someone who hadn't seen it, I'd say to stop at Heaven Sent and make up your own idea of what exactly happened on Gallifrey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 14:34:58 GMT
Actually I think there's been too much change with Doctor Who. Moffat in particular is on record as feeling he needs to do something different every time to avoid the programme going stale, but I feel this has led to too many failed experiments, and too many changes of tone. Hoping from series 11 we just go back to trying to tell a dozen cracking stories every year. It won't go stale if the quality is there.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Oct 8, 2016 18:26:53 GMT
Actually I think there's been too much change with Doctor Who. Moffat in particular is on record as feeling he needs to do something different every time to avoid the programme going stale, but I feel this has led to too many failed experiments, and too many changes of tone. Hoping from series 11 we just go back to trying to tell a dozen cracking stories every year. It won't go stale if the quality is there. So, Moffat, feels a change must happen every series. What evidence have you that he will tell a dozen cracking stories? Ohh, NONE!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 23:14:34 GMT
Actually I think there's been too much change with Doctor Who. Moffat in particular is on record as feeling he needs to do something different every time to avoid the programme going stale, but I feel this has led to too many failed experiments, and too many changes of tone. Hoping from series 11 we just go back to trying to tell a dozen cracking stories every year. It won't go stale if the quality is there. Ironically, I've actually found the least experimental stories of his era to be the most enjoyable. The Snowmen I still wish was longer, Vincent and the Doctor is a beautiful character study, Time of the Angels / Flesh and Stone follows the Earthshock format of yore and manages to add a new twist on it and A Christmas Carol is a pastiche that manages to match the Hinchcliffe/Holmes era in its ingenuity. It suffers from the same kind of failings that the Christopher H. Bidmead era did. Yes, you have these extremely fascinating ideas on show, but your characters are basically just there to espouse questions and be lectured to. In this last year, it became really easy to tell where they were going wrong because in order to do pseudo four-parters, deeply involved characters must be there. Stories tend to work rather well when writers operate from the rule of three -- have your protagonists, antagonists and the supporting cast pared off into their own individual threads to do their own thing; i.e. The Talons of Weng-Chiang follows the Doctor, Greel and Jago/Litefoot, respectively. People nowadays keep forgetting that formulae exist for a reason. Bob Holmes could show that just because he used an Erik-inspired villain operating out of a dingy hovel through a corrupted thrall as the basis of his stories, doesn't mean that they suddenly became stale. Using those basic components, all kinds of writers from Marc Platt ( The Ghosts of Gralstead) to John Dorney ( The Elite) have shown what could be done with them. You don't need a changing basis, you need changing substance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 6:33:06 GMT
Actually I think there's been too much change with Doctor Who. Moffat in particular is on record as feeling he needs to do something different every time to avoid the programme going stale, but I feel this has led to too many failed experiments, and too many changes of tone. Hoping from series 11 we just go back to trying to tell a dozen cracking stories every year. It won't go stale if the quality is there. Ironically, I've actually found the least experimental stories of his era to be the most enjoyable. The Snowmen I still wish was longer, Vincent and the Doctor is a beautiful character study, Time of the Angels / Flesh and Stone follows the Earthshock format of yore and manages to add a new twist on it and A Christmas Carol is a pastiche that manages to match the Hinchcliffe/Holmes era in its ingenuity. It suffers from the same kind of failings that the Christopher H. Bidmead era did. Yes, you have these extremely fascinating ideas on show, but your characters are basically just there to espouse questions and be lectured to. In this last year, it became really easy to tell where they were going wrong because in order to do pseudo four-parters, deeply involved characters must be there. Stories tend to work rather well when writers operate from the rule of three -- have your protagonists, antagonists and the supporting cast pared off into their own individual threads to do their own thing; i.e. The Talons of Weng-Chiang follows the Doctor, Greel and Jago/Litefoot, respectively. People nowadays keep forgetting that formulae exist for a reason. Bob Holmes could show that just because he used an Erik-inspired villain operating out of a dingy hovel through a corrupted thrall as the basis of his stories, doesn't mean that they suddenly became stale. Using those basic components, all kinds of writers from Marc Platt ( The Ghosts of Gralstead) to John Dorney ( The Elite) have shown what could be done with them. You don't need a changing basis, you need changing substance. Exactly. Change for change's sake is not a good idea and suggests an insecurity in the showrunner.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Oct 9, 2016 17:08:02 GMT
I would have changed how Gallifrey was brought back. This is an idea that came to me after the End of Time. What i would have done is rather than bring Gallfrey back properly, i would have had a few ships escape the planet while its in Earth's orbit (say three or four ships crammed with as many refugees and people as possible) and before its sucked back into the Time War.
After these events the survivors would have settled on another planet (somewhat hidden), christen the planet to themseleves New Gallifrey and restart Timelord society their way. Much later on The Doctor would find it (In events i would take and change from Solaris)
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Oct 9, 2016 17:11:28 GMT
I would have changed how Gallifrey was brought back. This is an idea that came to me after the End of Time. What i would have done is rather than bring Gallfrey back properly, i would have had a few ships escape the planet while its in Earth's orbit (say three or four ships crammed with as many refugees and people as possible) and before its sucked back into the Time War. After these events the survivors would have settled on another planet (somewhat hidden), christen the planet to themseleves New Gallifrey and restart Timelord society their way. Much later on The Doctor would find it (In events i would take and change from Solaris) I was hoping that during RTD time on DW, there would have be a colony outside of Gallifrey, and then there was the Time War.
|
|
|
Post by Superium on May 8, 2019 3:37:06 GMT
1. There would be a pure historical story in every series of New Who.
2. Time-Flight would've been Tegan's last story and Nyssa would've stayed on post-Terminus, which means we would've gotten 5, Nyssa, and Turlough in S20-21. Kamelion's introduction in King's Demons remains untouched. The departure of Turlough and the arrival of Peri in Planet of Fire also remain untouched. In Caves, Five grabs 3 vials of milk, manages to give Nyssa one, drops the second vial, and gives Peri the remaining one. Nyssa makes it to Twin Dilemma, which makes the transition a LOT more smoother and departs in Vengeance on Varos. The rest of Season 22 plays out, more or less, the same as it currently does. (Now that I'm reading this over, I'm getting fan fiction vibes)
There's one more I've thought of, but it requires the BBC giving the show a higher budget from the very beginning.
|
|
|
Post by MayoTango131 on May 8, 2019 13:24:45 GMT
Ironically, I've actually found the least experimental stories of his era to be the most enjoyable. The Snowmen I still wish was longer, Vincent and the Doctor is a beautiful character study, Time of the Angels / Flesh and Stone follows the Earthshock format of yore and manages to add a new twist on it and A Christmas Carol is a pastiche that manages to match the Hinchcliffe/Holmes era in its ingenuity. It suffers from the same kind of failings that the Christopher H. Bidmead era did. Yes, you have these extremely fascinating ideas on show, but your characters are basically just there to espouse questions and be lectured to. In this last year, it became really easy to tell where they were going wrong because in order to do pseudo four-parters, deeply involved characters must be there. Stories tend to work rather well when writers operate from the rule of three -- have your protagonists, antagonists and the supporting cast pared off into their own individual threads to do their own thing; i.e. The Talons of Weng-Chiang follows the Doctor, Greel and Jago/Litefoot, respectively. People nowadays keep forgetting that formulae exist for a reason. Bob Holmes could show that just because he used an Erik-inspired villain operating out of a dingy hovel through a corrupted thrall as the basis of his stories, doesn't mean that they suddenly became stale. Using those basic components, all kinds of writers from Marc Platt ( The Ghosts of Gralstead) to John Dorney ( The Elite) have shown what could be done with them. You don't need a changing basis, you need changing substance. Exactly. Change for change's sake is not a good idea and suggests an insecurity in the showrunner. Wow, these comments have aged badly. Moffat is brave, creative and takes risks. Chibnall is insecurity, coward and he does not know how to write real Doctor Who.
|
|
|
Post by MayoTango131 on May 8, 2019 13:30:12 GMT
I would have changed how Gallifrey was brought back. This is an idea that came to me after the End of Time. What i would have done is rather than bring Gallfrey back properly, i would have had a few ships escape the planet while its in Earth's orbit (say three or four ships crammed with as many refugees and people as possible) and before its sucked back into the Time War. After these events the survivors would have settled on another planet (somewhat hidden), christen the planet to themseleves New Gallifrey and restart Timelord society their way. Much later on The Doctor would find it (In events i would take and change from Solaris) I was hoping that during RTD time on DW, there would have be a colony outside of Gallifrey, and then there was the Time War. A big problem is that the Time Lords are not explorers like the Doctor or the Master, they are politicians locked in golden towers. They would have died outside their comfort zone. Why have not they escaped during or before the war?
|
|
|
Post by Superium on Jun 6, 2019 19:39:13 GMT
If I could somehow give the show a bigger budget from its inception, all of Classic Who (as well as New Who) would be shot COMPLETELY on film.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 7, 2019 1:15:29 GMT
If I could somehow give the show a bigger budget from its inception, all of Classic Who (as well as New Who) would be shot COMPLETELY on film. And every last can would have been stored for posterity.
|
|