[KitKatKate]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
I don't know about you guys, but I like the fact that the make some things impossible to figure out, or lead you down the wrong paths. I like being fooled in entertainment. Isn't that why we love magicians after all?

I agree with you that i like being fooled, but sometimes at the end i am confused how the sub plot even started. Like why did we have the whole sudden revelation that River Song was Amy and Rorys child! I just didnt understand why this had to be revealed especially since Amy and Rory are nearly finished now.

I think i preferred river song as a mystery, and is she a time lord or not as that completly confused me????

[JessicaW]

(Original post by KitKatKate)
I agree with you that i like being fooled, but sometimes at the end i am confused how the sub plot even started. Like why did we have the whole sudden revelation that River Song was Amy and Rorys child! I just didnt understand why this had to be revealed especially since Amy and Rory are nearly finished now.

I think i preferred river song as a mystery, and is she a time lord or not as that completly confused me????

Yeah, she is part time lord. Which came about from being conceived in the tardis.

[Feefifofum]

I like the more complex plots, and the longer story arcs. The separate stories always end up more childish. And longer, multi-episode stories are more traditional for Doctor Who too!

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by Feefifofum)
I like the more complex plots, and the longer story arcs. The separate stories always end up more childish. And longer, multi-episode stories are more traditional for Doctor Who too!

I like multi episode stories(2 and 3 parters) but not complex arcs and I also hate how Moffat is making every monster kind and stupid-its ridiculous.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
I also hate how Moffat is making every monster kind and stupid-its ridiculous.

Any examples?

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
Any examples?

Humans at fault for space whale.
The vampires just wanting to save their race
The eye creatures not being real
Silurians(believing that they deserved to own the land idn't have a problem,with this one it is just in here for comparison)
Krayfrais(scared)
The Lodger Ship(just wanting a pilot)
Siren-kind not nasty
Clones-meant to be kind(didn't have a problem,with this one it is just in here for comparison)
The robot trying to get rid of criminals instead of killing people
The dolls not being real and in a child's brain
The handbots(killing though kindess again didn't have a problem,with this one it is just in here for comparison)
The Minotaur(not wanting to kill them)
The Trees(just wanting to save their species)

I'm sick of all these so called kind/stupid monsters that moffat is coming up with-some of them are alright but there are too many of these monsters.Generally monsters should be evil,killer and real,with a few exceptions.We only had the Silence and Cybermen in Series 6

[Ape Gone Insane]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
Humans at fault for space whale.
The vampires just wanting to save their race
The eye creatures not being real
Silurians(believing that they deserved to own the land idn't have a problem,with this one it is just in here for comparison)
Krayfrais(scared)
The Lodger Ship(just wanting a pilot)
Siren-kind not nasty
Clones-meant to be kind(didn't have a problem,with this one it is just in here for comparison)
The robot trying to get rid of criminals instead of killing people
The dolls not being real and in a child's brain
The handbots(killing though kindess again didn't have a problem,with this one it is just in here for comparison)
The Minotaur(not wanting to kill them)
The Trees(just wanting to save their species)

I'm sick of all these so called kind/stupid monsters that moffat is coming up with-some of them are alright but there are too many of these monsters.Generally monsters should be evil,killer and real,with a few exceptions.We only had the Silence and Cybermen in Series 6

• Moffat didn't create all these monsters. Doctor Who has other writers, believe it or not.
• Notable monsters that he did create include Gas Mask children, Weeping Angels, The Silence and Vashta Nerada.
• The view that monsters should largely be evil, kill and real is an overly cliched, boring and an ill conceived view.
• The suggestion that Moffat exclusively does this, or that this is entirely new to DW, implies that RTD (and other writers) didn't do the exact same thing.
• The view that all monsters should have no motivations (survival, programming or inherent belief) other than 'omgz hai let's all try and be pure evil and rule the world and kill people for no reason' is another boring, cliched and ill conceived view. We have enough of those villains/monsters.

Let's hang the writers for daring to inject some variety in the actions and motivations of antagonists.

[The Rusty Spork]

(Original post by Ape Gone Insane)

• Moffat didn't create all these monsters. Doctor Who has other writers, believe it or not.
• Notable monsters that he did create include Gas Mask children, Weeping Angels, The Silence and Vashta Nerada.
• The view that monsters should largely be evil, kill and real is an overly cliched, boring and an ill conceived view.
• The suggestion that Moffat exclusively does this, or that this is entirely new to DW, implies that RTD (and other writers) didn't do the exact same thing.
• The view that all monsters should have no motivations (survival, programming or inherent belief) other than 'omgz hai let's all try and be pure evil and rule the world and kill people for no reason' is another boring, cliched and ill conceived view. We have enough of those villains/monsters.

Let's hang the writers for daring to inject some variety in the actions and motivations of antagonists.

Something drives me insane with sci fi more than anything is how every single being on a planet will have the exact same motivations and be essentially clones of eachother with one generic opposite person. If the race is essentially good then the opposite guy has a moustache so you know he is evil. If the race is evil the opposite guy will be blonde and ripped

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by Ape Gone Insane)

• Moffat didn't create all these monsters. Doctor Who has other writers, believe it or not.
• Notable monsters that he did create include Gas Mask children, Weeping Angels, The Silence and Vashta Nerada.
• The view that monsters should largely be evil, kill and real is an overly cliched, boring and an ill conceived view.
• The suggestion that Moffat exclusively does this, or that this is entirely new to DW, implies that RTD (and other writers) didn't do the exact same thing.
• The view that all monsters should have no motivations (survival, programming or inherent belief) other than 'omgz hai let's all try and be pure evil and rule the world and kill people for no reason' is another boring, cliched and ill conceived view. We have enough of those villains/monsters.

Let's hang the writers for daring to inject some variety in the actions and motivations of antagonists.

I want the antagonists to have motivations but motivations which aren't kind or moral.

[Ape Gone Insane]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
I want the antagonists to have motivations but motivations which aren't kind or moral.

No, it seems clear to me that you want every monster to emulate the Daleks (let's conquer the universe) and Cybermen (let's upgrade everyone). Have you noticed how utterly boring that becomes? The Vampires, as you stated, had motivations to the survival of their own species even if it meant killing humans but you discounted that too as something you disliked. It's like you really just want the same villain again and again who attempts to take over the world for no other reason than taking over the world or build some superuberduperultimatebadass-weapon to destroy everything. If I'm reading your other post right, you cite the Silence (and Cybermen) as one of the monsters that do fit this ideal criteria of yours. Yet The Silence were trying to prevent the Doctor from something terrible that was going to happen if he answered a question - arguably making their religious movement a moral cause to kill this 'dangerous' person?

It's not necessary to have antagonists as purely mindless evil entities, just to have their motivations/interests conflict with the protagonists.

(Original post by Mess.)
Something drives me insane with sci fi more than anything is how every single being on a planet will have the exact same motivations and be essentially clones of eachother with one generic opposite person. If the race is essentially good then the opposite guy has a moustache so you know he is evil. If the race is evil the opposite guy will be blonde and ripped

A heavily stereotyped hivemind basically, I try and avoid that like a plague.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
I want the antagonists to have motivations but motivations which aren't kind or moral.

On top of what Ape's said about the villains not being Moffat's creation (I'll add the clockwork soldiers to his list of villains introduced in a series 4 Moffat episode, they seem to satisfy your 'zomg we're pure evil' criterion), I'll address this view that you're expressing to the villains of series 5 and 6.

-The space whale wasn't a monster. Humans were the monster, and their motivation was highly selfish and unethical by today's standards.
-The vampires wanting to save their race...I assume you mean the creatures in Utopia, in series 4 before Moffat was even in a position of power? I'd call the need to eat a sufficiently good motivation.
-The eye creatures: I assume you mean the Atraxi from the Eleventh Hour, I'll talk about Prisoner Zero, too. Prisoner Zero was willing to put innocent people into comas and steal their identity to prevent himself from being brought to justice for his crime. He's also willing to let the Earth burn; evading justice for your crimes - that's a kind and moral motivation? The Atraxi, to bring justice to Prisoner Zero, are willing to destroy the Earth. Destroying someone because they can't give you what you want is kind and moral? Also, how the **** were they not real?
-Silurians: instead of attempting negotiation, going for an all-out war over land because 'we were there first'. That's kind and moral in your view? I suppose you feel the same way about the Israel/Palestine conflict?
-The Lodger ship: kidnapping and killing lots of people to find a pilot for your ship; that's kind and moral?
-Siren - introduces variation. She's the first villain in series 5 and 6 which has been 'misunderstood' and isn't actually a villain at all; I found this dynamic very interesting.
-Clones? You mean the creatures in the Doctor's dream world? They seemed pretty evil to me. There was no motivation for their killing of people. As for the Dream lord himself, I found that an incredibly interesting insight into the mind of the Doctor, showing another flawed side to our hero.
-Whether the dolls were imaginary or not doesn't take away from the fact that they 'killed' for the sake of killing. Sounds pretty evil to me.
-Again, need to survive I'd say is a perfectly good motivation for the minotaur.
-I don't remember any villainous trees. Might be my memory failing me.

[Ape Gone Insane]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
-I don't remember any villainous trees. Might be my memory failing me.

If I recall correctly, I think he means the monsters in the Dream Lord episode, Amy's Choice. I don't think he was paying attention during the episode.

[Colonel.]

Villainous trees in that Christmas Special that we all blocked out.

[Ape Gone Insane]

Lol... that episode. There have been a lot of tree villains now that I think about it. I think RTD had some as well.

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
On top of what Ape's said about the villains not being Moffat's creation (I'll add the clockwork soldiers to his list of villains introduced in a series 4 Moffat episode, they seem to satisfy your 'zomg we're pure evil' criterion), I'll address this view that you're expressing to the villains of series 5 and 6.

-The space whale wasn't a monster. Humans were the monster, and their motivation was highly selfish and unethical by today's standards.
-The vampires wanting to save their race...I assume you mean the creatures in Utopia, in series 4 before Moffat was even in a position of power? I'd call the need to eat a sufficiently good motivation.
-The eye creatures: I assume you mean the Atraxi from the Eleventh Hour, I'll talk about Prisoner Zero, too. Prisoner Zero was willing to put innocent people into comas and steal their identity to prevent himself from being brought to justice for his crime. He's also willing to let the Earth burn; evading justice for your crimes - that's a kind and moral motivation? The Atraxi, to bring justice to Prisoner Zero, are willing to destroy the Earth. Destroying someone because they can't give you what you want is kind and moral? Also, how the **** were they not real?
-Silurians: instead of attempting negotiation, going for an all-out war over land because 'we were there first'. That's kind and moral in your view? I suppose you feel the same way about the Israel/Palestine conflict?
-The Lodger ship: kidnapping and killing lots of people to find a pilot for your ship; that's kind and moral?
-Siren - introduces variation. She's the first villain in series 5 and 6 which has been 'misunderstood' and isn't actually a villain at all; I found this dynamic very interesting.
-Clones? You mean the creatures in the Doctor's dream world? They seemed pretty evil to me. There was no motivation for their killing of people. As for the Dream lord himself, I found that an incredibly interesting insight into the mind of the Doctor, showing another flawed side to our hero.
-Whether the dolls were imaginary or not doesn't take away from the fact that they 'killed' for the sake of killing. Sounds pretty evil to me.
-Again, need to survive I'd say is a perfectly good motivation for the minotaur.
-I don't remember any villainous trees. Might be my memory failing me.

Humans were the enemies in the space whale episode and that is an absolute no no-I want monsters and the Minotaur wanted to die but was forced to kill.For the eye creatures I meant the eyes in the mouth and clones,from the rebel flesh-its Ok to have some deviation,on a few occasions but far too many kind monsters.

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
No, it seems clear to me that you want every monster to emulate the Daleks (let's conquer the universe) and Cybermen (let's upgrade everyone). Have you noticed how utterly boring that becomes? The Vampires, as you stated, had motivations to the survival of their own species even if it meant killing humans but you discounted that too as something you disliked. It's like you really just want the same villain again and again who attempts to take over the world for no other reason than taking over the world or build some superuberduperultimatebadass-weapon to destroy everything. If I'm reading your other post right, you cite the Silence (and Cybermen) as one of the monsters that do fit this ideal criteria of yours. Yet The Silence were trying to prevent the Doctor from something terrible that was going to happen if he answered a question - arguably making their religious movement a moral cause to kill this 'dangerous' person?

It's not necessary to have antagonists as purely mindless evil entities, just to have their motivations/interests conflict with the protagonists.



A heavily stereotyped hivemind basically, I try and avoid that like a plague.

The silence attacked a lot of other people than the doctor and yes thats what we want, bad ass fully evil monsters killing everyone.

[Feefifofum]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
The silence attacked a lot of other people than the doctor and yes thats what we want, bad ass fully evil monsters killing everyone.

No, it's what you want. Having monsters with a variety of motivations and characteristics is much more interesting. Why should all monsters be evil and trying to kill everyone? That gets dull very quickly.

[Colonel.]

Don't poke the moron.

[SirMasterKey]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
-The vampires wanting to save their race...I assume you mean the creatures in Utopia, in series 4 before Moffat was even in a position of power? I'd call the need to eat a sufficiently good motivation.

I think he meant Vampires of Venice, you know those hot women in Series 5 who turned out to be big fish?

(Original post by Dalek1099)
I want the antagonists to have motivations but motivations which aren't kind or moral.

Care to give some examples of what they could be then? Other than the 'Kill all the people!'

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by SirMasterKey)
I think he meant Vampires of Venice, you know those hot women in Series 5 who turned out to be big fish?

Oh yeah. The queen had brilliant tits.