|
Post by Timelord007 on Jun 30, 2016 15:22:46 GMT
I haven't had much in the way of hope for New Who ever since the season 6 arc went off the rails half-way through (and given what was done with/to River's character). Apart from a few stand-out episodes in each of seasons 7, 8, and 9, I simply have not liked what Moffat thinks Who should be. Sooo.....whatever. I'm going to watch S10, but I'm struggling to find the enthusiasm. Big Finish produces the real Who these days. Anyway, I don't even remember who this character was in Husbands, but then, watching that episode gave me indigestion so I had trouble paying complete attention. It's probably for the best, judging by everyone else's reaction to the idea that the character will return... Completely agree with all my friend has stated here, sums up how i feel about current Doctor Who anyway.
|
|
aztec
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,849
|
Post by aztec on Jun 30, 2016 15:54:12 GMT
I on the other hand am enjoying New Who more at the moment than I have done for years, I stopped watching mid way through Series 6 after getting rather bored with the overblown timey wimey fairytale tone and the squandering of Smith's fine talent on what I perceived to be an unwelcome emphasis on zany humour and Moffat's tendency to overwrite the Doctor's importance, thankfully since casting Capaldi in the role he's reigned himself in, the Doctor is now back to be just a 'idiot with a box passing through' the storylines have (i.m.o) improved dramtically(Series 9 is practically perfect i.m.o) Clara actually gained a personality, and Capaldi has become one of my favourite Doctors.
But each to their own.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Jun 30, 2016 16:53:31 GMT
Thus far Capaldi has managed to sustain my interest in the series in spite of what else goes on, and series 9 is the first time I've been taking in fresh episodes on TV since Sylvester so I'm really enjoying being able to generally look forward to the next episode. I am getting a bit nervous though because I think for example maybe the show's gone a bit rudderless with River's direction, and I'm praying that no one has gotten the bright idea to recruit Lucas for comedic relief. Nothing wrong with companions providing amusement but comedic relief is something that Who hasn't seemed to require even of K-9. If, God forbid, Nardole were to be made the Joxter to the Doctor's Xena, I may well be forced to avert my gaze from the show, be even more grateful for Big Finish than ever, and begin counting down the many, many days until 12th Doctor audios...
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 30, 2016 16:58:56 GMT
Thus far Capaldi has managed to sustain my interest in the series in spite of what else goes on, and series 9 is the first time I've been taking in fresh episodes on TV since Sylvester so I'm really enjoying being able to generally look forward to the next episode. I am getting a bit nervous though because I think for example maybe the show's gone a bit rudderless with River's direction, and I'm praying that no one has gotten the bright idea to recruit Lucas for comedic relief. Nothing wrong with companions providing amusement but comedic relief is something that Who hasn't seemed to require even of K-9. If, God forbid, Nardole were to be made the Joxter to the Doctor's Xena, I may well be forced to avert my gaze from the show, be even more grateful for Big Finish than ever, and begin counting down the many, many days until 12th Doctor audios... Hopefully Nardole's inclusion is because they feel they can develop the character more than to entertain the kids of the family audience.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Jun 30, 2016 18:35:21 GMT
I on the other hand am enjoying New Who more at the moment than I have done for years, I stopped watching mid way through Series 6 after getting rather bored with the overblown timey wimey fairytale tone and the squandering of Smith's fine talent on what I perceived to be an unwelcome emphasis on zany humour and Moffat's tendency to overwrite the Doctor's importance, thankfully since casting Capaldi in the role he's reigned himself in, the Doctor is now back to be just a 'idiot with a box passing through' the storylines have (i.m.o) improved dramtically(Series 9 is practically perfect i.m.o) Clara actually gained a personality, and Capaldi has become one of my favourite Doctors. But each to their own. You really see the Doctor as an "idiot"?
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jun 30, 2016 20:27:25 GMT
Thus far Capaldi has managed to sustain my interest in the series in spite of what else goes on, and series 9 is the first time I've been taking in fresh episodes on TV since Sylvester so I'm really enjoying being able to generally look forward to the next episode. I am getting a bit nervous though because I think for example maybe the show's gone a bit rudderless with River's direction, and I'm praying that no one has gotten the bright idea to recruit Lucas for comedic relief. Nothing wrong with companions providing amusement but comedic relief is something that Who hasn't seemed to require even of K-9. If, God forbid, Nardole were to be made the Joxter to the Doctor's Xena, I may well be forced to avert my gaze from the show, be even more grateful for Big Finish than ever, and begin counting down the many, many days until 12th Doctor audios... I loved S8 Capaldi. I really like the contemptuous edge towards idiocy and ignorance some of his regenerations have had, especially when snapping off a well-deserved bit of condescension. 1 and 3 come to mind in particular. I still like S9 Capaldi, but I feel like he was given some direction to soften up a bit. I also think he captured the essential alien nature of the character. There's a bit of each of these things in Into the Dalek. (Apart from the "am I a good man" theme). (Similarly, I thought S5 Smith was spot-on, but something changed in S6, as if he was told "be more wacky, and start twirling around the console"). There's certainly a place for comedic relief, but the style matters.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jun 30, 2016 20:30:15 GMT
the Doctor is now back to be just a 'idiot with a box passing through' the storylines I think that's actually part of the problem I have with the writing - this notion that he is a daft old man constantly screwing up in an adorable fashion for most of the time, except for the conclusion of the episode where he comes out with some brilliant solution no one else thought of. He wasn't ever supposed to be an idiot. He was supposed to be alien and in many ways incomprehensible. A brilliant miscreant. An oddball who couldn't take his people's stuffy existence. He's even alien to his own culture. But he's lately been presented as just plain daft in too many situations, often for comedic relief. Ah well.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Jul 1, 2016 1:49:43 GMT
I haven't had much in the way of hope for New Who ever since the season 6 arc went off the rails half-way through (and given what was done with/to River's character). Apart from a few stand-out episodes in each of seasons 7, 8, and 9, I simply have not liked what Moffat thinks Who should be. Sooo.....whatever. I'm going to watch S10, but I'm struggling to find the enthusiasm. Big Finish produces the real Who these days. Anyway, I don't even remember who this character was in Husbands, but then, watching that episode gave me indigestion so I had trouble paying complete attention. It's probably for the best, judging by everyone else's reaction to the idea that the character will return... FWIW he balanced the snarky old sod with the witty wanderer rather well - not as acidic as season 8, not as intentionally quirky as season 9.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 3:20:44 GMT
I haven't had much in the way of hope for New Who ever since the season 6 arc went off the rails half-way through (and given what was done with/to River's character). Apart from a few stand-out episodes in each of seasons 7, 8, and 9, I simply have not liked what Moffat thinks Who should be. Sooo.....whatever. I'm going to watch S10, but I'm struggling to find the enthusiasm. Big Finish produces the real Who these days. Anyway, I don't even remember who this character was in Husbands, but then, watching that episode gave me indigestion so I had trouble paying complete attention. It's probably for the best, judging by everyone else's reaction to the idea that the character will return... FWIW he balanced the snarky old sod with the witty wanderer rather well - not as acidic as season 8, not as intentionally quirky as season 9. Fortunately, the issue is not with Peter Capaldi's acting, I don't think it's ever been. I'd call the characterisation of "idiot in a box" offensive, but it's been going on for such a long time now that it's just kind of sad really. Even Peter Cushing's Dr. Who had more guile and steel. I don't know who this man is, but as he's said himself on occasion, he's not the Doctor. The Doctor is better than this.
|
|
|
Post by relativetime on Jul 1, 2016 3:58:10 GMT
"Idiot in a box" is preferable to "basically Space Jesus" and more in line with Classic Who than many people really care to admit, in my opinion. Are we forgetting that it took basically SIX regenerations (and who knows how many hundreds of years!) just to be able to reliably pilot the TARDIS? To me, the show is at its best when the Doctor is more fallible and not as all-knowing. Certainly he's wise and really intelligent, but I think he should always be a bit of an idiot.
That's largely my problem with New Who - it's tendency to make the Doctor some sort of "god." I hated it when RTD did it with the Tenth Doctor and I don't like it when Moffat sometimes descends to that same level.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Jul 1, 2016 4:19:02 GMT
Once upon a time, I think it was David McIntee, compared in a DWM Who to Trek, one is full of overachievers who have to apologise when they ONLY graduate second in their class (c.f. Julian Bashir) and who have a duty to fix things and thr other is centred around a man who barely graduated from university on his second attempt to graduate and who is constantly disappointed that people are hurting each other - in effect the Doctor could be summed up by two Mighty Trout quotes "some corners of the universe have bred the most terrible things etc" and "it's it terrible that people spend all their time making pretty things and other people come along and break them", the Doctor knows there's evil, but can't understand it.
RTD ignored that, and instead made the Doctor a man driven by remorse into seeking out things that need to be protected and going out to do good rather than a man who wandered hither and yon and stopped to help people because it was the right thing to do. To be summarised by the Doctors line "I'm the Doctor and I save people", the Doctor sees saving people as his calling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 4:36:46 GMT
"Idiot in a box" is preferable to "basically Space Jesus" and more in line with Classic Who than many people really care to admit, in my opinion. Are we forgetting that it took basically SIX regenerations (and who knows how many hundreds of years!) just to be able to reliably pilot the TARDIS? To me, the show is at its best when the Doctor is more fallible and not as all-knowing. Certainly he's wise and really intelligent, but I think he should always be a bit of an idiot. That's largely my problem with New Who - it's tendency to make the Doctor some sort of "god." I hated it when RTD did it with the Tenth Doctor and I don't like it when Moffat sometimes descends to that same level. Oh, god the character should never be inerrable. It took Ian, Barbara and the Daleks to have him really start looking at the universe from a moral standpoint and even the godlike Seventh Doctor made mistakes, I think I just object to his defining characteristic at the moment being "a madman in a box". If you think about it, the word "idiot" literally means someone of sub-par intelligence and includes synonyms like cretin, half-wit, imbecile or thicko. There's a difference between him becoming so engrossed in a Rembrandt that he doesn't notice his companions leaving to have a coffee and putting down the character because he doesn't fit in with narrow views of normality. I hate the notion that because he isn't perfect, he's somehow regarded as less intelligent because of it. I object to the word being used to describe him. Fallible, yes absolutely. Stupid, no.
|
|
|
Post by relativetime on Jul 1, 2016 5:33:37 GMT
"Idiot in a box" is preferable to "basically Space Jesus" and more in line with Classic Who than many people really care to admit, in my opinion. Are we forgetting that it took basically SIX regenerations (and who knows how many hundreds of years!) just to be able to reliably pilot the TARDIS? To me, the show is at its best when the Doctor is more fallible and not as all-knowing. Certainly he's wise and really intelligent, but I think he should always be a bit of an idiot. That's largely my problem with New Who - it's tendency to make the Doctor some sort of "god." I hated it when RTD did it with the Tenth Doctor and I don't like it when Moffat sometimes descends to that same level. Oh, god the character should never be inerrable. It took Ian, Barbara and the Daleks to have him really start looking at the universe from a moral standpoint and even the godlike Seventh Doctor made mistakes, I think I just object to his defining characteristic at the moment being "a madman in a box". If you think about it, the word "idiot" literally means someone of sub-par intelligence and includes synonyms like cretin, half-wit, imbecile or thicko. There's a difference between him becoming so engrossed in a Rembrandt that he doesn't notice his companions leaving to have a coffee and putting down the character because he doesn't fit in with narrow views of normality. I hate the notion that because he isn't perfect, he's somehow regarded as less intelligent because of it. I object to the word being used to describe him. Fallible, yes absolutely. Stupid, no. I don't think I mean it quite like that, though I admit the definition of the word certainly does mean what you imply. Perhaps a less harsh word might be "fool." Or, as the Eleventh Doctor puts it, "a mad man in a box." That's really what I'm attempting to get at, honestly. I'm not attempting to say he's not intelligent. I like the concept of the Doctor coming across or even referring to himself as something of a fool - even "idiot" in this case - as opposed to moments in New Who where he uses just his name to send an enemy running or having moments where his companions talk about how he's "so much more." The Doctor is almost always a bit of a fool on the outside but deeply wise and knowledgable beneath. And he certainly strikes me as someone who is FAR more humble than he often is in New Who - and this is coming from someone who generally quite enjoys New Who!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 7:27:41 GMT
Oh, god the character should never be inerrable. It took Ian, Barbara and the Daleks to have him really start looking at the universe from a moral standpoint and even the godlike Seventh Doctor made mistakes, I think I just object to his defining characteristic at the moment being "a madman in a box". If you think about it, the word "idiot" literally means someone of sub-par intelligence and includes synonyms like cretin, half-wit, imbecile or thicko. There's a difference between him becoming so engrossed in a Rembrandt that he doesn't notice his companions leaving to have a coffee and putting down the character because he doesn't fit in with narrow views of normality. I hate the notion that because he isn't perfect, he's somehow regarded as less intelligent because of it. I object to the word being used to describe him. Fallible, yes absolutely. Stupid, no. I don't think I mean it quite like that, though I admit the definition of the word certainly does mean what you imply. Perhaps a less harsh word might be "fool." Or, as the Eleventh Doctor puts it, "a mad man in a box." That's really what I'm attempting to get at, honestly. I'm not attempting to say he's not intelligent. I like the concept of the Doctor coming across or even referring to himself as something of a fool - even "idiot" in this case - as opposed to moments in New Who where he uses just his name to send an enemy running or having moments where his companions talk about how he's "so much more." The Doctor is almost always a bit of a fool on the outside but deeply wise and knowledgable beneath. And he certainly strikes me as someone who is FAR more humble than he often is in New Who - and this is coming from someone who generally quite enjoys New Who! Oh, dear we've gotten into a discussion about etymology. Not to worry, I know exactly what you mean, I'm not a fan of gloating heroes either. I much prefer the word "fool" for the Doctor because of what a fool or jester represents to a king. He's the man who sees the world for what it is and can speak both as a low and highborn, the one who reminds rulers of the world's daft nature and how they themselves are just as mortal as those they reign over. I think that's the Doctor's nature in a nutshell really, the traveller who sees the cosmos and tries to make things better by showing people they can be better than what they initially appear. He's the nameless man who rolls into town on a whim, sets everything to rights and then departs for future horizons using the exact same methods. Hopefully a little wiser, hopefully having made things that little bit better.
|
|
|
Post by Timelord007 on Jul 1, 2016 7:52:33 GMT
Capaldi is a great Doctor who's just happened to have had some terrible scripts thrown his way & silly supporting characters.
I'd love to have seen Capaldis Doctor in a Robert Holmes penned story now that would have been something special.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jul 1, 2016 9:12:56 GMT
Capaldi is a great Doctor who's just happened to have had some terrible scripts thrown his way & silly supporting characters. I'd love to have seen Capaldis Doctor in a Robert Holmes penned story now that would have been something special. In my view, the new series writers are by far and away better than the classic series ones - and that includes Robert Holmes.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Jul 1, 2016 9:16:14 GMT
Capaldi is a great Doctor who's just happened to have had some terrible scripts thrown his way & silly supporting characters. I'd love to have seen Capaldis Doctor in a Robert Holmes penned story now that would have been something special. In my view, the new series writers are by far and away better than the classic series ones - and that includes Robert Holmes. HERETICS!!! BURN THE HERETIC!!!!
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jul 1, 2016 9:59:01 GMT
In my view, the new series writers are by far and away better than the classic series ones - and that includes Robert Holmes. Okay, no. Much as I love NuWho (and believe me I freaking do for the most part), I think the only writer who has provided great material consistently enough in NuWho is Mathieson. All the rest, much as I may love som of their stories, have (IMO) more weak apps in their Who résumés. And besides, Bob Holmes is Bob Holmes. For my money the best TV writer ever (unless we divide Moffat into two Eras, one up to and including S5 and one after that). Steven Moffat, Mark Gattis, Paul Cornell, Robert Shearman, Toby Whithouse, Russell T Davies, Sarah Dollard... Steven Moffat is the best TV writer ever not Bob Holmes IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 10:07:38 GMT
Capaldi is a great Doctor who's just happened to have had some terrible scripts thrown his way & silly supporting characters. I'd love to have seen Capaldis Doctor in a Robert Holmes penned story now that would have been something special. I think he'd slip rather comfortably into The Sun Makers, but I'd love to see him in something like Pyramids of Mars. Got to love an omnicidal maniac that was within a hair's breadth of conquering the universe from the heart of his personal prison. I can just see his eyes blaze straight through Clara when they stumble upon Lawrence's body. He died pleading for his brother's life, murdered by the thing that had destroyed the intellect and will of Marcus Scarman. CLARA: "Oh, sometimes you don't seem--" TWELVE: "Human? Typical Osirian simplicity." CLARA "A man has just been murdered." TWELVE: " Four men, Clara. Five, if you include Professor Scarman himself and may be the first of millions unless Sutekh is stopped. Know thine enemy. Admirable advice."
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jul 1, 2016 11:19:52 GMT
Steven Moffat, Mark Gattis, Paul Cornell, Robert Shearman, Toby Whithouse, Russell T Davies, Sarah Dollard... Steven Moffat is the best TV writer ever not Bob Holmes IMO. Moffat, for me, was utterly incredible at the start, but has over the last few years varied wildly in terms of quality. Shearman had a single story, not enough to prove his TV credentials to me (although he's without a doubt the best audio writer). All the rest, although I agree they're all fantastic, aren't as good as Holmes. Fair enough but I'll always hold the view that as great as the classic series is, the writing was never its strong point like it is with the new series.
|
|