Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 12:16:30 GMT
One of the many challenges about watching Doctor Who four days after its transmission (due to mind-numbing and ever-so-slightly degrading work activities) is that you can't really escape the mixed reviews the episode has had. Even the very lovely people here have not enjoyed it as much as previous episodes. Also, the viewing figures - an indicator, I'll admit, of absolutely nothing - are the lowest for this series. My 'problem' is that I'm naturally more willing to be impressed by something that has had a mixed reception - moreso than something that's been universally praised.
That all said, I absolutely loved this. It is my favourite episode of the three-parter. This whole story has been like a series finale, but in the middle of a series. There's an epic quality to it I find irresistable. Yes, the Monks are quite like the Silents, but that doesn't adversely bother me. Doctor Who has never been afraid to expand familiar themes - after all, The Cybermen are very much like the Daleks in that they are the last vestiges of a humanoid species trapped inside life-saving metallic shells.
The crew are magnificent. So much so that I almost forgive Peter C's perfectly played Doctor and Matt Lucas's light-shade Nardole for their nasty trick on Bill. It doesn't bother me that the fake regeneration has been done before. When David Tennant appeared to regenerate, it was very popular, so why not try something similar again (onlt this week, of course, the masses were busy watching Britan's Got Talent. Twits watching twits, or is that unkind?) ? Michelle Gomez continues to be brilliant as Missy, every bit as good as any version of The Master in my view.
And I can't be the only one who teared up a little towards the end, when Bill's mummy memories helped save the day (perhaps it's because I lost my own not so long ago). Again, this 'love conquers all' theme has been used before, but not for a while (Was 'Night Terrors' the last time?), and it's a theme worth revisiting. Just a look at today's news stories should be proof of that.
Did I mention the direction and music were fantastic?
So yes - absolutely loved this.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jun 7, 2017 14:35:19 GMT
It just seems hugely inconsistent that they clearly have this vast amount of power and then abandon it completely and put up no resistance. The Monks literally do one firefight to try and stop the Doctor. That's my issue, that after two episodes building the Monks up as this hugely powerful adversary Lie of the Land seemingly abandons this with the Monks doing practically nothing the entire episode. They didn't need to do anything. Implied power. At risk of banging my head on the desk, let me try this again. One last time. The dispute a number of us are having is not about whether they NEEDED "implied power" versus "big power" in the third episode, nor is it about the how they supposedly ruled Earth.
Ok? It is NOT about those two things.
The point is that they HAD great power and USED that great power in episodes one and two. Ok? So it doesn't matter to that point what was theoretically needed in the third fictional episode where they ruled the world and it is not about how they ruled it. It is about how, no matter what the third episode said, the Monks in fact had and used great power in the first episode. None of your opinions about what was "needed" for the events in the third episode can possibly change what was in fact on the screen in the first and second episodes. If the Monks can't stop the Doctor/Bill in the third episode because all they had at that point was "implied" power, that is inconsistent with the first two episodes where they had great power. It's not a ****ing explanation or an answer to respond "oh, but, they just had implied power in the third episode" because, no kidding, that is the exact flaw being pointed out. The flaw being the inconsistency between "great power" in 1 & 2, to ineffective/meaningless "implied power" in 3, for no reason whatsoever. They were just suddenly ineffective and weak in the third installment, for no reason other than that the ending would not have been possible otherwise. That's bad storytelling. I don't know how to be any more clear than that.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 7, 2017 14:36:46 GMT
They didn't need to do anything. Implied power. At risk of banging my head on the desk, let me try this again. One last time. The dispute a number of us are having is not about whether they NEEDED "implied power" versus "big power" in the third episode, nor is it about the how they supposedly ruled Earth.
Ok? It is NOT about those two things.
The point is that they HAD great power and USED that great power in episodes one and two. Ok? So it doesn't matter to that point what was theoretically needed in the third fictional episode where they ruled the world and it is not about how they ruled it. It is about how, no matter what the third episode said, the Monks in fact had and used great power in the first episode. None of your opinions about what was "needed" for the events in the third episode can possibly change what was in fact on the screen in the first and second episodes. I don't know how to be any more clear than that. They didn't need to use their power from the first two parts though because of implied power.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jun 7, 2017 14:38:27 GMT
At risk of banging my head on the desk, let me try this again. One last time. The dispute a number of us are having is not about whether they NEEDED "implied power" versus "big power" in the third episode, nor is it about the how they supposedly ruled Earth.
Ok? It is NOT about those two things.
The point is that they HAD great power and USED that great power in episodes one and two. Ok? So it doesn't matter to that point what was theoretically needed in the third fictional episode where they ruled the world and it is not about how they ruled it. It is about how, no matter what the third episode said, the Monks in fact had and used great power in the first episode. None of your opinions about what was "needed" for the events in the third episode can possibly change what was in fact on the screen in the first and second episodes. I don't know how to be any more clear than that. They didn't need to use their power from the first two parts though because of implied power. Either you're trolling or we're speaking very different versions of English. Once more, you completely ignore what is being said to you and simply repeat yourself.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jun 7, 2017 15:14:03 GMT
At risk of banging my head on the desk, let me try this again. One last time. The dispute a number of us are having is not about whether they NEEDED "implied power" versus "big power" in the third episode, nor is it about the how they supposedly ruled Earth.
Ok? It is NOT about those two things.
The point is that they HAD great power and USED that great power in episodes one and two. Ok? So it doesn't matter to that point what was theoretically needed in the third fictional episode where they ruled the world and it is not about how they ruled it. It is about how, no matter what the third episode said, the Monks in fact had and used great power in the first episode. None of your opinions about what was "needed" for the events in the third episode can possibly change what was in fact on the screen in the first and second episodes. I don't know how to be any more clear than that. They didn't need to use their power from the first two parts though because of implied power. We're not talking about ruling the world-yes they did not need their power for that because of implied power. The fact is despite being built up a hugely powerful adversaries in the first two episodes the Monks did practically nothing to even try and stop the Doctor and Bill in the third. That's what we're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 7, 2017 15:15:12 GMT
They didn't need to use their power from the first two parts though because of implied power. We're not talking about ruling the world-yes they did not need their power for that because of implied power. The fact is despite being built up a hugely powerful adversaries in the first two episodes the Monks did practically nothing to even try and stop the Doctor and Bill in the third. That's what we're talking about. They did nothing BECAUSE of the implied power. It was stated clearly in Lie of the Land.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jun 7, 2017 15:18:05 GMT
We're not talking about ruling the world-yes they did not need their power for that because of implied power. The fact is despite being built up a hugely powerful adversaries in the first two episodes the Monks did practically nothing to even try and stop the Doctor and Bill in the third. That's what we're talking about. They did nothing BECAUSE of the implied power. It was stated clearly in Lie of the Land. That still makes no sense. They didn't even try and stop the Doctor escaping his prison. Quite frankly the Monks were virtually useless as villains in The Lie of the Land. That's what I'm criticising, the fact they were built up hugely as a huge adversary and then did virtually nothing except growl. It's just unsatisfying, and granted that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 7, 2017 15:22:22 GMT
They did nothing BECAUSE of the implied power. It was stated clearly in Lie of the Land. That still makes no sense. They didn't even try and stop the Doctor escaping his prison. Quite frankly the Monks were virtually useless as villains in The Lie of the Land. That's what I'm criticising, the fact they were built up hugely as a huge adversary and then did virtually nothing except growl. It's just unsatisfying, and granted that's just my opinion. They did virtually nothing because they didn't need to do anything. Why waste resources when you have already alerted them to your power?
|
|
|
Post by christmastrenzalore on Jun 7, 2017 15:31:16 GMT
That still makes no sense. They didn't even try and stop the Doctor escaping his prison. Quite frankly the Monks were virtually useless as villains in The Lie of the Land. That's what I'm criticising, the fact they were built up hugely as a huge adversary and then did virtually nothing except growl. It's just unsatisfying, and granted that's just my opinion. They did virtually nothing because they didn't need to do anything. Why waste resources when you have already alerted them to your power? In episode 2, they physically healed the Doctor's eyes across thousands of miles. In episode 3, they're actively on guard, and didn't even notice the Doctor was just below the ledge they were standing on. It's inconsistent.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 7, 2017 15:33:26 GMT
They did virtually nothing because they didn't need to do anything. Why waste resources when you have already alerted them to your power? In episode 2, they physically healed the Doctor's eyes across thousands of miles. In episode 3, they're actively on guard, and didn't even notice the Doctor was just below the ledge they were standing on. It's inconsistent. They knew that even if The Doctor would try to rewrite what they'd done it would fry his brain, and also as I keep saying implied power. The Monks fighting them is exactly what The Doctor would expect because he knew of their power.
|
|
|
Post by christmastrenzalore on Jun 7, 2017 15:36:55 GMT
In episode 2, they physically healed the Doctor's eyes across thousands of miles. In episode 3, they're actively on guard, and didn't even notice the Doctor was just below the ledge they were standing on. It's inconsistent. They knew that even if The Doctor would try to rewrite what they'd done it would fry his brain, and also as I keep saying implied power. The Monks fighting them is exactly what The Doctor would expect because he knew of their power. So you're saying they didn't stop the Doctor, because they didn't need to, and were just humouring their efforts, like an over-confidant Anime-villain? EDIT: For the record, if that IS what you're trying to say, not only is it a terribly contrived interpretation, if anything it makes the story worse.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 7, 2017 16:56:53 GMT
They knew that even if The Doctor would try to rewrite what they'd done it would fry his brain, and also as I keep saying implied power. The Monks fighting them is exactly what The Doctor would expect because he knew of their power. So you're saying they didn't stop the Doctor, because they didn't need to, and were just humouring their efforts, like an over-confidant Anime-villain? . Exactly. They believed in their own power that would stop The Doctor changing everything back, because he wouldn't want to fry his brain.
|
|
|
Post by TinDogPodcast on Jun 7, 2017 18:42:40 GMT
One of the many challenges about watching Doctor Who four days after its transmission (due to mind-numbing and ever-so-slightly degrading work activities) is that you can't really escape the mixed reviews the episode has had. Even the very lovely people here have not enjoyed it as much as previous episodes. Also, the viewing figures - an indicator, I'll admit, of absolutely nothing - are the lowest for this series. My 'problem' is that I'm naturally more willing to be impressed by something that has had a mixed reception - moreso than something that's been universally praised. That all said, I absolutely loved this. It is my favourite episode of the three-parter. This whole story has been like a series finale, but in the middle of a series. There's an epic quality to it I find irresistable. Yes, the Monks are quite like the Silents, but that doesn't adversely bother me. Doctor Who has never been afraid to expand familiar themes - after all, The Cybermen are very much like the Daleks in that they are the last vestiges of a humanoid species trapped inside life-saving metallic shells. The crew are magnificent. So much so that I almost forgive Peter C's perfectly played Doctor and Matt Lucas's light-shade Nardole for their nasty trick on Bill. It doesn't bother me that the fake regeneration has been done before. When David Tennant appeared to regenerate, it was very popular, so why not try something similar again (onlt this week, of course, the masses were busy watching Britan's Got Talent. Twits watching twits, or is that unkind?) ? Michelle Gomez continues to be brilliant as Missy, every bit as good as any version of The Master in my view. And I can't be the only one who teared up a little towards the end, when Bill's mummy memories helped save the day (perhaps it's because I lost my own not so long ago). Again, this 'love conquers all' theme has been used before, but not for a while (Was 'Night Terrors' the last time?), and it's a theme worth revisiting. Just a look at today's news stories should be proof of that. Did I mention the direction and music were fantastic? So yes - absolutely loved this. I was also 4 days behind. So I feel your pain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 18:49:58 GMT
I was also 4 days behind. So I feel your pain. Not easy is it? I could have watched it sooner, I suppose, but I like my mind unencumbered by the distraction of mundane elements of 'real life' casting a shadow over my enjoyment of the best show on the box!
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jun 7, 2017 21:11:29 GMT
We're not talking about ruling the world-yes they did not need their power for that because of implied power. The fact is despite being built up a hugely powerful adversaries in the first two episodes the Monks did practically nothing to even try and stop the Doctor and Bill in the third. That's what we're talking about. They did nothing BECAUSE of the implied power. It was stated clearly in Lie of the Land. Now, try assuming that your audience does not believe that "clearly stated in [X episode]" is an answer to an assertion "there is a problem with [X episode]". Seriously... You cannot not understand what is being said to you. Look at the bolded: IF Lie of the Land said the Monks don't have power only "implied power", THEN it is a flaw because Monks had real very big power in Extremis & Pyramid. You need to try to understand that other people do not accept "this particular episode said a thing" as a be-all, end-all. The criticism of the episode is that it is inconsistent with the rest. Therefore, "but the episode told us" cannot be a logical response to that criticism. You can ignore it/choose not to debate it, but don't keep ****ing repeating the same thing at people without listening.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jun 7, 2017 21:20:57 GMT
That still makes no sense. They didn't even try and stop the Doctor escaping his prison. Quite frankly the Monks were virtually useless as villains in The Lie of the Land. That's what I'm criticising, the fact they were built up hugely as a huge adversary and then did virtually nothing except growl. It's just unsatisfying, and granted that's just my opinion. They did virtually nothing because they didn't need to do anything. Why waste resources when you have already alerted them to your power? He's talking about the Doctor escaping, you're talking about the Monks controlling humans. The Doctor did escape, therefore your statement "they didn't need to do anything" is demonstrably false. Demonstrated false, in fact. They DID need to do something, but they did not or could not do it. Again, nobody gives a **** about "implied power" controlling humans. We aren't talking about all the humans right now. I'm having an extremely hard time accepting that you are honestly making a point rather than just trolling, given how many different people have said the same thing however many different ways. You do not have to agree that the episode is faulty, but for FFS, stop doing what you are doing.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jun 7, 2017 21:28:51 GMT
So you're saying they didn't stop the Doctor, because they didn't need to, and were just humouring their efforts, like an over-confidant Anime-villain? . Exactly. They believed in their own power that would stop The Doctor changing everything back, because he wouldn't want to fry his brain. They modeled everything before. How did they not model Bill's reaction? Once more, the problem is Moffat building up a nearly all-powerful monster, then relying on "the last episode told us so" to resolve it. Maybe if it wasn't always so damn grandiose these days, this wouldn't be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jun 7, 2017 21:36:08 GMT
So you're saying they didn't stop the Doctor, because they didn't need to, and were just humouring their efforts, like an over-confidant Anime-villain? . Exactly. They believed in their own power that would stop The Doctor changing everything back, because he wouldn't want to fry his brain. FURTHER yet, they modeled the Doctor down to his glasses. They would know he very much would fry his brain. Unless, again, it was a build-up without a planned landing.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 7, 2017 22:49:28 GMT
Exactly. They believed in their own power that would stop The Doctor changing everything back, because he wouldn't want to fry his brain. They modeled everything before. How did they not model Bill's reaction? Once more, the problem is Moffat building up a nearly all-powerful monster, then relying on "the last episode told us so" to resolve it. Maybe if it wasn't always so damn grandiose these days, this wouldn't be an issue. They probably see Bill as just a weak, puny human being like they likely do the rest of the human race.
|
|
|
Post by J.A. Prentice on Jun 8, 2017 2:14:36 GMT
I think the Monks having only implied power works excellently as an idea. Enemies who aren't really dangerous, they just make you think they are. It's a novel concept and one that might make a good point about real world evils...
Unfortunately, the Monks in Pyramid do not have only implied power. They pull planes from the sky. They yank a submarine out of the ocean. They predict the future before it happens. They restore the Doctor's sight from another country. That's powerful on a Lovecraftian-entity level. It's certainly not a species that could have been driven out by humans being a bit annoyed.
All three episodes had some solid ideas behind them, but I think joining them into one story leads to a disjointed narrative that doesn't treat the Monks consistently at all.
|
|