|
Post by Ela on Jul 6, 2017 21:05:47 GMT
Cyber-Bill: Sigh. They just had to, didn't they? They just couldn't resist, and you could see it coming for miles. Stop making me like these great companions so much and then doing terrible things to them, it merely rouses my ire (often with accompanying sarcasm) in the direction of the producers. IMHO, it also casts The Doctor in bad light that many of these things happen to persons in his company in the first place. Further, I think Bill's conversion invites all kinds of weird logistical concerns, and for me will never have the slightest to do with why this closing episode was so great. Episode in General: Great story, with some really intriguing aspects. Amazing performances all around, particularly Peter. I was almost literally moved to tears by the level of simple, honest conviction he imparted to The Doctor here, and how beautifully written that was. The season has itself been great on the whole, and it's led to some high expectations that weren't disappointed (aside from the lastest Cyber-ization). Also, although I don't require anything nearly that fancy, I do have to say I admire the quality of many of the special effects, they really were impressive. I really should thank everyone who was involved in making this past season so enjoyable, just as soon as I'm done fuming over poor Bill. How dare they?!?! :-) I agree with you about Cyber-Bill. When I saw that coming my first thought was, "Really?! They're going to turn her into a Cyberman?" I'm still thinking about this story and the other one, probably will try to re-watch before I put my thoughts into words.
|
|
|
Post by doomlord on Jul 6, 2017 21:12:08 GMT
You've got to wonder why modern Doctor Who doesn't have a scientific advisor on-board to check this sort of stuff... Just a bit of trivia but Arthur C Clarke was a scientific advisor on the Dan Dare strips in the Eagle comic during (artist and creator) Frank Hampson's tenure on the strip.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jul 6, 2017 21:24:33 GMT
Tend to agree more with Josh on the (non-)redemption thing. Take Stalin. Increase his crimes by several orders of magnitude, so instead of thirty to one hundred million, he's killed oh....five septillion people across galaxies. K? Five septillion. Then let's say he catches a single would-be murderer and kills that would-be murderer before he can push an old lady down the stairs. Then, he feels sad and shoots himself in the head. Stalin redeemed? Five septillion murders forgiven? He's a good soul now? The minute you try to equate things like how we respond to a comic character in a BBC family show with real life dictators who slaughtered millions, I'm out. It's not a fair comparison. There's no suspension of disbelief for real life. Nonsense comment, frankly, which evokes Goodwin's law. I cannot compare the moral weight of murder in a fictional show with the moral weight of murder in real life, because it's a fictional show? I am personally being nonsensical if I use my own human moral judgments to view the moral weight of mass murders in a fictional universe? Are you serious? If that's true, then the Master was never really that bad, the Daleks are never really that bad, etc. After all, they and all the Doctor's foes are in a fictional universe, and apparently you think that murder doesn't have any comparable weight in a fictional universe. WTF wouldn't Stalin be a good comparison? The Master burns stars for fun, remember? He burns worlds, remember? How can the show present a character as evil but through reference to existing human morality? How can any act have any moral weight in a fictional universe if what you're saying is true? Based on what you're saying, nobody can make a judgment about the moral weight of the act because it's a comic character in a fictional universe. And, you're being incredibly dishonest in referring to it as evoking Godwin's law. That was a simple observation that any internet debate veers towards the point where someone calls someone else a Nazi. That is not what happened here. Funny story: around the 2016 election, Godwin himself actually penned a piece about how he actually does not think comparisons to Nazis is always necessarily wrong, aka, a violation of his "law". His point was simply that people tend towards unfair comparisons because they think it makes their opinion stronger. He actually thinks that it's perfectly fine to compare something to an aspect of nazism if it's a reasoned comparison. You are being unbelievably dishonest if you claim that's what I was doing. I picked Stalin BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF CHARACTER THE MASTER HAS ALWAYS BEEN; a great big evil mass murderer without a whit of morality to him. And I'm being nonsensical if I accept that and think to myself "gee, did that little glimmer of semi-decentness redeem all the other acts we're told he did"? If you love the show so very much that you cannot hear a criticism without getting personal, then watch what you read. Nonsense and Godwin indeed. You can stuff that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 21:46:36 GMT
The minute you try to equate things like how we respond to a comic character in a BBC family show with real life dictators who slaughtered millions, I'm out. It's not a fair comparison. There's no suspension of disbelief for real life. Nonsense comment, frankly, which evokes Goodwin's law. I cannot compare the moral weight of murder in a fictional show with the moral weight of murder in real life, because it's a fictional show? Are you serious? If that's true, then the Master was never really that bad, the Daleks are never really that bad, etc. After all, they and all the Doctor's foes are in a fictional universe, and apparently you think that murder doesn't have any comparable weight in a fictional universe. WTF wouldn't Stalin be a good comparison? The Master burns stars for fun, remember? How can the show present a character as evil but through reference to existing human morality? How can any act have any moral weight in a fictional universe if what you're saying is true? And, you're being incredibly dishonest in referring to it as evoking Godwin's law. That was a simple observation that any internet debate veers towards the point where someone calls someone else a Nazi. That is not what happened here. Funny story: around the 2016 election, Godwin himself actually penned a piece about how he actually does not think comparisons to Nazis is always necessarily wrong, aka, a violation of his "law". His point was simply that people tend towards unfair comparisons because they think it makes their opinion stronger. You are being unbelievably dishonest if you claim that's what I was doing. I picked Stalin BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF CHARACTER THE MASTER HAS ALWAYS BEEN. It's that simple. You clearly didn't enjoy the episode - you've detailed it at length in many posts - but when some of us post that we like how Missy's arc was resolved,to be told it's like believing Stalin can be redeemed you're essentially saying those of us buying the story are doing just that by inviting the comparison with real world events. That's why it's a nonsense. The vast majority of posters can reconcile the fiction of the story with the need for acts to have a moral weight informed by our own reality. We can think Darth Vader is absolutely cool while also recognising he's a mass murderer - a child murderer no less - who was also *gasp* redeemed in the end. We don't need to say "Well, I couldn't forgive Fred West so I don't believe Vader can be redeemed. We use the - as I said in my first post - suspension of disbelief and let the story unfold. Ditto Moriarty, The Joker, Khan and many, many other fictional supervillains who are idolised as fiction but would be monsters in the real world And please - you don't need to use caps and bolding to make a point seem louder. We're really not that kind of forum mostly. If you think - as you went back to edit it - I was personal, I don't see how. Complain to the mods by all means but I'm quite sure anyone else will see no personal attack in my post, only your reply.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jul 6, 2017 22:04:05 GMT
You clearly didn't enjoy the episode - you've detailed it at length in many posts - but when some of us post that we like how Missy's arc was resolved,to be told it's like believing Stalin can be redeemed you're essentially saying those of us buying the story are doing just that by inviting the comparison with real world events. That's why it's a nonsense. The vast majority of posters can reconcile the fiction of the story with the need for acts to have a moral weight informed by our own reality. We can think Darth Vader is absolutely cool while also recognising he's a mass murderer - a child murderer no less - who was also *gasp* redeemed in the end. We don't need to say "Well, I couldn't forgive Fred West so I don't believe Vader can be redeemed. We use the - as I said in my first post - suspension of disbelief and let the story unfold. Ditto Moriarty, The Joker, Khan and many, many other fictional supervillains who are idolised as fiction but would be monsters in the real world And please - you don't need to use caps and bolding to make a point seem louder. We're really not that kind of forum mostly. If you think - as you went back to edit it - I was personal, I don't see how. Complain to the mods by all means but I'm quite sure anyone else will see no personal attack in my post, only your reply. Oh, you have got to be kidding me. I stated my personal opinion briefly about why it just didn't work for me. I gave my reasons. I didn't mention you, I didn't reply to you. So no, I was not saying that you think Stalin can be redeemed simply because you like the redemption scene. I wasn't talking about you or trying to convince you of anything. You can think whatever you like about the redemption. I was simply stating why it doesn't work for me. You disagreed, but instead of doing it the way people usually do here - ie, saying they disagree then listing their reasons - you tell me I'm being nonsensical and falsely accuse me of "envoking Godwin." And now you're going to throw jabs because I briefly used capslock? Please. I get that you loved the scene, I really do. But that doesn't mean everyone did. And it most certainly doesn't mean that it's "nonsense" for me to use my own real-world moral weight to judge a fictional redemption scene and find it wanting.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jul 6, 2017 22:07:36 GMT
Well, I tried to give it another chance. Same feeling. On the whole positive And again, I said I enjoyed it overall.
|
|
|
Post by kimalysong on Jul 6, 2017 22:24:02 GMT
Moderator Note: If you feel like you are starting to get annoyed sometimes it's best to just agree to disagree
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,703
|
Post by shutupbanks on Jul 6, 2017 22:31:06 GMT
So logically, the repair crews must have discovered that it was unsalvageable. The mission is doomed and the colonial crewmen are fully aware of it, hence their decision to pack it in and turn it into a generation ship. The reverse engines (you're right, no mention of retrorockets) are only there to prolong their civilisation until the crack of doom. Perhaps the X-ray bombardment was the original reason for the Cybermen? I don’t know what the culture is like where you work, but if my boss gave me an assignment and I found I couldn’t complete it, I think he’d appreciate it if I took the elevators back up and checked in with him before I dashed off and started a whole new civilization in the bowels of the ship ... If the episode hinges on some element of science, they need to either get the science right or they need to de-emphasize it. “But Doctor, wouldn’t X,Y and Z happen if that’s the case?” “Precisely, Zoe! It’s interference from the McGuffin drive to makes this possible!” or “Yes, this shouldn’t be happening! We’ll have to investigate further to determine why! ” I think the science is "right enough" for the story. I only know a little about black holes, but I'm aware that a 400-mile-long colony ship would need a lot of fail-safes, shielding and back-up systems to ensure that it did not go wrong and kill everyone on board. The sheer length of the ship implies that there's a certain amount of "handwavium" being used in its construction. Which is why the crew aren't killed by radiation and probably also why the ship hasn't been torn apart by the tidal forces of the black hole. As for the precise amount of time that might pass between the bridge and the Hospital level, well, my maths is pretty dodgy but it's a story element that doesn't bother me too much - I mean, it's not like saying that the moon is an egg or that trees can protect us from solar radiation, or that clones have the memories and clothing of their donor bodies. Also, they can't use the main engines to get away from the black hole because turning a ship of that size around would take a long time and expose more of its surface area to the black hole, therefore they have to use their "reverse" engines to deal with the problem. Any engines the ship would have on its side would be for navigational adjustments rather than long-term travel so they wouldn't be powerful enough to keep the ship away from the black hole as it was turning: the main engines would be at the rear of the ship for general propulsion and at the front for deceleration - and the front engines would need to be pretty powerful as well to slow down a 400-mile-long ship that's built up a big head of steam in the vacuum of space. As to the colonists, well, if they've been doing some work on the engines at the edge of a black hole's gravity well, they aren't going to notice things have gone a little pear-shaped until they start going to other levels and noticing that time is passing at different rates. If you remember, in WEAT, there was mention of an exploratory mission to a higher level that didn't come back. They might have realised that time was passing slowly and decided to stay where they were for their own safety. IMNSHO, the main premise of the story holds up well enough that it can survive scrutiny for the purpose of dramatic licence. (Last thought: who's to say that the Master doesn't have his TARDIS wired up to the engines helping them out and that any excessive time dilation is coming from that?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 5:42:15 GMT
I like the thought that some of the less explicable bits were caused by the Master. He said he decided to take control of level 1056 when he realised he was stuck. Maybe he forced the maintenance crew to stay down there when they came down, rather than them just inexplicably deciding to live out their lives on the lower levels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 7:29:50 GMT
Whatever the reason -- and boy does it look as though there are a lot to snatch at -- it sure as hell beats turning the Cyber-march down the steps outside St. Paul's Cathedral into a selfie gag. It's a decent story and given some of the endings we've gotten with two-parters recently, Moffat can consider it one of his best for the Twelfth Doctor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 10:54:09 GMT
It's a decent story and given some of the endings we've gotten with two-parters recently, Moffat can consider it one of his best for the Twelfth Doctor. That was one of the highlights for me; a two-part Doctor Who story where both episodes were equally brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jul 7, 2017 11:25:50 GMT
Well, I tried to give it another chance. Same feeling. On the whole positive, but the faults remain. Still don't like the overdone melodrama/sentimentalism during the last 1/3 or 1/4. They even address the fundamental absurdity I pointed out earlier. The Doctor explains they can’t escape because the further they go to the top up a lift, the faster time will be passing for the cybermen relative to them. Exactly. That’s why the repair crew would have arrived back on the bridge faster than if this had been a repair job in normal space. (Unless, as someone noted, we choose to make up a bunch of stuff not in the script about how actually, the engines were broken so the repair crew decided to live out their life down there, while inexplicably not alerting the bridge. One could also suppose that a magical space-time whatsit was actually off-screen throughout Kill The Moon, making sure that normal physics could be circumvented, and that setting magical spacetime whatsits are just another thing that the moon-creatures create when they pick a breeding spot.) That just doesn't work for me, and frankly gives license to the show to not even try to be coherent. One of the things that bugs me most about it is that it is completely unnecessary to have such faults, as BF demonstrates time and time again. Anyway, I think I'll leave that particular horse alone for the moment (well, until the next episode where a similar fault arises). As for my sense that the desire not to regenerate was almost suicidal sounding rather than 10 "I don't want to go" sounding, there was the bit where he's about to blow everything up. He starts regenerating after being shot (49:56) and says "Doctor, Doctor. Let it go. Time enough.” Stops regenerating, inhales, blows up all the gas lines. “Pity, no stars. I hoped there be stars." It sounded very much like he's saying "nah, don't regenerate because I'm simply done with this". (After all, remember how 10 lost a hand while still in the 24h after regenerating and it just plain grew back. How River could take a hail of bullets then blow up Nazis with regeneration juice? No reason to think he wouldn't survive the explosion if he had actually regenerated as he set it off. Hence the way I took things, which is probably foolish because there is little to no effort to keep so much as one season of reboot consistent with another, let alone the classic series.) Then there's all the later stuff I already addressed re: repeating insistence that he can't keep changing, doesn't want to regenerate, and "wherever it is, I'll stay", whatever that means. (What's his plan anyway, if he isn't really as world-weary as he sounded to me? Spend the rest of his life on an ice planet, fighting regeneration every 50 seconds. Until what? He passes out from cold exposure and regenerates anyway?) I know that's not where the show is going, seeing as it isn't being canceled. But it still had that tone for me. Ah well, no doubt he'll get a pep talk from 1 on Christmas.... I agree that the ending really doesn't hold up if you think about it. I also hate how Bill and Clara have the exact same fate and how the Missy turning good wasn't really solved and was just another bungled up arc Missy turning good WAS resolved. She was going to stand with the Doctor before seemingly being killed by the Simm Master.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jul 7, 2017 11:28:05 GMT
It's a decent story and given some of the endings we've gotten with two-parters recently, Moffat can consider it one of his best for the Twelfth Doctor. That was one of the highlights for me; a two-part Doctor Who story where both episodes were equally brilliant! I'd say the Series 8 and Series 10 finales are both like that. Very strong endings for two out of three of 12's series.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Jul 7, 2017 12:37:56 GMT
Very strong endings for two out of three of 12's series. I'm with you on that. Last year's finale wasn't my cup of tea but the other two were great.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jul 7, 2017 15:16:36 GMT
Missy turning good WAS resolved. She was going to stand with the Doctor before seemingly being killed by the Simm Master.We know those things occurred on screen. The question is whether or not each of us counts Missy committing a murder-suicide so she could go "stand with the Doctor" and dying as a result, as a full redemption. Most seem to. A few of us don't seem to. It's about as subjective a question as one could get, so...... :shrug:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 16:14:06 GMT
Missy turning good WAS resolved. She was going to stand with the Doctor before seemingly being killed by the Simm Master.We know those things occurred on screen. The question is whether or not each of us counts Missy committing a murder-suicide so she could go "stand with the Doctor" and dying as a result, as a full redemption. Most seem to. A few of us don't seem to. It's about as subjective a question as one could get, so...... :shrug: I don't care one way or the other. The fact is, she did turn her back on her old ways at the very end. It doesn't matter in any way whatsoever whether that makes up for past deeds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 18:25:23 GMT
We know those things occurred on screen. The question is whether or not each of us counts Missy committing a murder-suicide so she could go "stand with the Doctor" and dying as a result, as a full redemption. I don't care one way or the other. The fact is, she did turn her back on her old ways at the very end. It doesn't matter in any way whatsoever whether that makes up for past deeds. Yep, I agree with that. Missy chose to change and turn away from her dark side, giving up her life even, so she came good in the end. That's good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jul 7, 2017 19:29:29 GMT
I don't care one way or the other. The fact is, she did turn her back on her old ways at the very end. It doesn't matter in any way whatsoever whether that makes up for past deeds. Yep, I agree with that. Missy chose to change and turn away from her dark side, giving up her life even, so she came good in the end. That's good enough for me. I get that I'm in the minority of viewers who weren't convinced. I don't know that much is being added at this point. Perhaps I'm not as forgiving as some, but when a character is presented as a monster, I expect a lot before contemplating forgiveness/redemption. I'd need to see something like a new Master coming in and behaving Doctory on his/her own, better yet without even knowing the Doctor was watching - genuinely being good on his or her own. But again, I understand that plenty of people disagree and loved the concept/scene. Edit: To me, it's more a tragedy of potential redemption denied. Missy never got her chance to stand with the Doctor, then to go on and continue doing good deeds on her own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 20:23:13 GMT
Yep, I agree with that. Missy chose to change and turn away from her dark side, giving up her life even, so she came good in the end. That's good enough for me. I get that I'm in the minority of viewers who weren't convinced. I don't know that much is being added at this point. Perhaps I'm not as forgiving as some, but when a character is presented as a monster, I expect a lot before contemplating forgiveness/redemption. I don't know if you are in a minority of viewers (we are only a small niche within the general Doctor Who TV watching audience), but it's okay to have a different opinion. You state your views and it's what you believe. That's ok. I'd hate to be on a forum where we all agree with each other... that would be very boring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 20:35:21 GMT
Talking over it with a few people at work, I realised that for all his sins, for all the murder and genocide I've never been realy truly angry at The Master and his actions.
Untill last week.
When he did that "You see this face?" line to Capaldi after that speech, I honestly hated him. I was furious in a way I've never been when told he's wiped out a chunk of the universe. Moffat's writing, and the acting of Capaldi and Simm, made me feel something much more intense than any panto-histrionics. And all it took was a smarmy, dimissive comment. Wonderful stuff.
|
|