Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Doctor Who - Discussion Thread III (no untagged future spoilers) Watch

  • View Poll Results: What did you think about the first storyline of series 9?
    Excellent
    0
    0%
    Good
    0
    0%
    Average
    0
    0%
    Poor
    0
    0%
    Awful
    0
    0%

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IMakeSenseToNone)

    The villian - I actually liked him damn it, he had to be simple for the sake of the episode and as a reverse cybermen he works really nicely. Well acted and the model used for the clockwork inside his head is fantastic.
    +1 for this. Had to feel a bit sorry for him, and I kinda hope it was the Doctor who pushed him rather than him jumping of his own will.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IMakeSenseToNone)
    Totally agree with Capaldi in the Q&A, bring back the original cybermen! Tons better than the new ones, brain in a robot is boring and unoriginal, a person who has willingly turned themselves into something sub human through hyper plastic surgery is marvellous.

    -

    So I gave it another watch and hopefully i've got more of a handle on some of the flaws and strengths.

    Weaknesses:

    Clara and patronising the audience - I love Jenna and Clara got much more to do and had some stand out moments but her stand in for the audience doesn't work. She's seen the Doctor regenerate more than anyone else, and so have we, this shouldn't phase her so much and her role to assure us that this is still the Doctor therefore doesn't work as we know already and she should know better. It got pretty patronising on occasions with digs at people who don't like Capaldi as he's old as if this is somehow a big marjority of fans.

    Paternoster gang - No need for so much development of them on what is Capaldi's first episode. I want him and Clara not unecessary scenes of Strax (who still is just a walking joke) giving Clara a medical. Also the d/s undertones didn't really sit well with me as a kids show and having the kiss be another kiss of necessity made it feel rather forced. We get that Jenny and Vastra are a thing, and that's brilliant and I believe them but I would hope we were slightly past that point.

    The theme - I like the direction but it's missing the bass, it's too thin and needs that darker edge of the oldest incarnations.

    The phone call at the end - It wasn't needed, I like it but after an entire episode of Capaldi and Clara getting used to him a reminder about the past was somewhat unnecessary. If it was in at all it would have been better near the beginning.

    Murray Gold - Still don't like his music, far too bomastic when something much subtler is called for.

    Positives -

    Dialogue - The mirror's angry, there's no point in us both being cold, attack eyebrows, take five, who invented this room - All good stuff.

    Slower pacing - Felt more like the classic series instead of the 90 miles an hour pace it's been going lately.

    The villian - I actually liked him damn it, he had to be simple for the sake of the episode and as a reverse cybermen he works really nicely. Well acted and the model used for the clockwork inside his head is fantastic.

    Misc - The resturant and scene with the homeless man, both wonderfully acted and written. 'I wear this viel not as a courtesy but as a judgement'. New Tardis. Yay bookshelves. Nice exploration of growing older. Capaldi is great and perfect and wonderful.
    I actually found clara to be very annoying in this episode and I am probably in the minority but I do not like her as the doctors companion. Even with matt she was annoying and when capaldi mentioned in the episode of how he wished amy was there I wished for the same thing! I think capaldi could be an amazing darker doctor if moffat could wrote decent epsiodes!



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by St. Brynjar)
    +1 for this. Had to feel a bit sorry for him, and I kinda hope it was the Doctor who pushed him rather than him jumping of his own will.
    Aye, poor half-face needed a hug in that scene :console: Shame he isn't a hugging Doctor.

    (Original post by Teddysmith123)
    I actually found clara to be very annoying in this episode and I am probably in the minority but I do not like her as the doctors companion. Even with matt she was annoying and when capaldi mentioned in the episode of how he wished amy was there I wished for the same thing! I think capaldi could be an amazing darker doctor if moffat could wrote decent epsiodes!
    She was rather running at a different level than everyone else, she was very frantic where everyone else slowed it down a notch. Her standing up to the Half-faced man was a wonderful moment for her though. From the looks of it she's getting a Doctor-lite ep down the line and a few more set at home so hopefully that bodes well for future development.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I found that episode was quite dull. I didn't like the fact that Capaldi's Doctor was similar to Smith's Doctor (although if it is just an effect of regeneration and disappears for the next episode I will be fine with it) add to this the fact that all of Clara's complaints were about his looks made for one awful episode.

    Personally, I think Moffat needs to go. I think that he was fantastic at one-off story lines (e.g. Blink/Doctor Dances 2 parter) yet when it comes to being Head Writer he makes some awful decisions such as splitting one series in half and some of the endings of seasons. His first season was his best because it fitted together with an interesting storyline and was rounded off well. However the next few seasons have been awful because he seemingly wants to build up to a huge season climax letting the quality of the build-up episodes decline and yet when we reach the climax it is an underwhelming, disappointment. For example look at the Doctor's death, the build-up of the second half of the season had some awful episodes and when we reach the explanation it is practically a get out of jail free card as they explain that the Doctor didn't really die he just let the universe think he did (which Moffat subsequently got rid of by having the Daleks remember who he is). My final problem with Moffat is that he doesn't explain things and it is incredibly frustrating - for example look at when Clara jumps in to save the Doctor and he jumps in after her, where do they go when they find each other and how did they get out of there. Another example is at the end of Smiths run at the battle of Trenzalore; I had to look on the Doctor Who wikipedia to find out that this created a different universe where he survived, yet Moffat never explains this (I thought that at the end of his life, the Doctor goes to Trenzalore to die).

    tl;dr Moffat should leave because his writing is awful with the big events are not explained and he panders to children rather than make the Doctor's adventures interesting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I know doctor who is meant to be aimed at kids, but some of the darker episodes are my particular favorites, blink -duh-, the empty child, Satan’s pits. I found all of these episodes more entertaining than episodes like, the doctor, the witch and the wardrobe.

    I was a massive fan of the David Tennant and Christopher Ecceleston. Maybe that was down to a bigger influence from Russell T Davis.

    With Matt Smith, I found the storylines more kiddish and some episodes just awful. But I continued with the show, mostly down to Matt Smiths acting! I wasn't a big fan of Vastra's group. We never really find out how they became to be the doctors friends unlike that of captain jack, rose and etc. Instead they were just tossed in like "Here’s a sontarian, he will be cool! People will like him" I do like the 11th doctor’s theme tune though...

    With an older doctor I am hoping for better, darker episodes. Less kiddy crap with those annoying *thump* and *bang* noises.

    I do understand that it is directed at children but still. I find Sherlock emphasis on storytelling and drama much better in comparison to some of stuff from the most recent seasons.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    To be fair a lot of complaints about Moffat he's seemingly trying to rectify a bit - no convoluted arc for the season, no break, episodes stand more alone, 'darker' and less flirtatious Doctor and more new blood. Deep Breath is very much a set up and it's rather harsh to base a final opinion on the show runner until it's all played out.


    (Original post by NorwichtoBristol)
    add to this the fact that all of Clara's complaints were about his looks made for one awful episode.
    All of them? She was totally fine with the War Doctor so it must be something deeper than that. Maybe it's somewhat of a factor but it's rather boiling it down to something simpler than it is. This is the man she had a crush on, who she trusted, gave her life for and has known for a long time if you count going into his time stream. Yes she's seen past incarnations and yes she's having to deal with not having that young man to have around (or someone not as schmexy as Colin Baker :sexface:) but someone her age (even just in appearance) may be something she finds easier to relate to. Even if it is shallow, you're going to view Matt Smith differently than Capaldi and the nature of a relationship could well change, in a way Smith's appearance is a veil for his age where it's fairly easy to forget he's 2,000+ but now it isn't, and that's something she needs to confront.

    Also the Doctor is actively different here, he abandons her, he's shown a more cold blooded side and this is the man she needs to be able to trust in dangerous situations - It's not exactly easy for her even if imo this shouldn't be such a shock for someone who has seen how different he has been, but the more I think about it, the more okay I am. Still think the episode is a bit patronising but it doesn't feel too ooc.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm just so happy that Clara has finally developed a personality. Her first few episodes she was far too 2D as a character - the latest episode really fleshed her out. I just hope that the script allows her to maintain this new personality for the entire season...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I am irritated with a lot of the Moffatisms in Deep Breath, but it's still possible that they will decrease as time goes on.

    An interesting graphic that has been doing the rounds this week, on the subject of alleged sexism in Doctor Who.

    Name:  10628703_727788463942514_6391775513447850354_o.jpg
Views: 165
Size:  71.3 KB

    (FYI in case any don't know, the Bechdel Test is whether there are a) two female characters [preferably named] who b) have a conversation c) about something other than a man.)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feefifofum)
    I am irritated with a lot of the Moffatisms in Deep Breath, but it's still possible that they will decrease as time goes on.
    No one says Moffatisms as a compliment do they?


    I would be interested to see a male version actually, I can't imagine it scores much better amongst Rory/Mickey, if not worse. Really the Bechdel test is more suited to a show with a wide cast of characters ala a sitcom, when it's applied to a show with such a central figure it doesn't work so much as everyone, their conversations and the story itself is revolving around the one central male character so it's natural that there's less opportunity and plot points to allow for such moments.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feefifofum)
    I am irritated with a lot of the Moffatisms in Deep Breath, but it's still possible that they will decrease as time goes on.

    An interesting graphic that has been doing the rounds this week, on the subject of alleged sexism in Doctor Who.

    Name:  10628703_727788463942514_6391775513447850354_o.jpg
Views: 165
Size:  71.3 KB

    (FYI in case any don't know, the Bechdel Test is whether there are a) two female characters [preferably named] who b) have a conversation c) about something other than a man.)
    The Bechdel test proves nothing. There can be TV shows/films that contain strong independent women which don't pass the test. It's criteria is limited.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unibuster325)
    The Bechdel test proves nothing. There can be TV shows/films that contain strong independent women which don't pass the test. It's criteria is limited.
    On occasion the criteria can be limited (eg multiple groups of characters with women who never meet each other, for example). But I don't think the 'have two women' requirement is a particularly taxing one, yet many shows and movies seem to fail at the first hurdle. The world is 50% women, it would be great if television would reflect that.

    Also I would argue that Moffat's problem is that he can only create 'strong independent women' ie women who are exactly the same, talk the same way, make the same choices, are 'feisty' or whatever. That is the problem. The women are cookie-cutter moulds of each other, whereas all the men have a variety of characteristics and motivations. It'd be great to see a range of women, even damsels in distress. Multifaceted, distinct characters are what is needed.

    The Bechdel test is a great starting point for discussing the female content in TV though, and I think the statistics do show that Moffat's record is nowhere near as good as RTD's.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinkpenguin)
    On occasion the criteria can be limited (eg multiple groups of characters with women who never meet each other, for example). But I don't think the 'have two women' requirement is a particularly taxing one, yet many shows and movies seem to fail at the first hurdle. The world is 50% women, it would be great if television would reflect that.

    Also I would argue that Moffat's problem is that he can only create 'strong independent women' ie women who are exactly the same, talk the same way, make the same choices, are 'feisty' or whatever. That is the problem. The women are cookie-cutter moulds of each other, whereas all the men have a variety of characteristics and motivations. It'd be great to see a range of women, even damsels in distress. Multifaceted, distinct characters are what is needed.

    The Bechdel test is a great starting point for discussing the female content in TV though, and I think the statistics do show that Moffat's record is nowhere near as good as RTD's.
    But the Moffat Era does feature a wide range of women. We've had a young girl trapped in a fiesty woman's body who can't let go of her fairytale fantasies (Amy), a flirtatious professor/Doctor who has a number of adventures with and without the Doctor(River), a evil and very twisted kidnapper hell-bent on murder(Madam Kovarian) and a curious wannabe explorer who loves looking after kids(Clara). That's quite a bit of variation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I saw a very interesting post on Tumblr which said that the scene in which The Doctor is complaining that Clara isn't 'seeing him' draws parallels to him not seeing Martha Jones, and basically treating her as second class. :holmes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unibuster325)
    The Bechdel test proves nothing. There can be TV shows/films that contain strong independent women which don't pass the test. It's criteria is limited.
    I didn't claim that it was a perfect test, but it doesn't 'prove nothing'. Those figures show, for example, that female characters are getting much less screen time than was the case under Russell T Davies.

    Personally, I think the reason for the number of Moffatt episodes failing the Bechdel Test is symptomatic of Moffatt's writing - it's all about the Doctor. It used to be the case that he would go around finding adventures, but every Moffatt season has been about some epic storyline centring around the character of the Doctor. So it's natural that, under those circumstances, there would be fewer conversations between female characters about something other than a man - because they are always talking about the Doctor.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feefifofum)
    I didn't claim that it was a perfect test, but it doesn't 'prove nothing'. Those figures show, for example, that female characters are getting much less screen time than was the case under Russell T Davies.
    How does that show anything?

    The Bechdel Test sets out to prove sexism and the lack of women screen time doesn't prove that at all. The entire thing relies too much on talking, whereas some scenes without talking can convey so much more.
    Personally, I think the reason for the number of Moffatt episodes failing the Bechdel Test is symptomatic of Moffatt's writing - it's all about the Doctor.
    And it has been for the last 50 years. The show is called 'Doctor Who', not 'The Doctor's Companion'.
    It used to be the case that he would go around finding adventures, but every Moffatt season has been about some epic storyline centring around the character of the Doctor.
    Series 7 didn't revolve entirely around the Doctor. It also partly explored a mystery arc surrounding Clara too. That's just one example I can think of.

    So it's natural that, under those circumstances, there would be fewer conversations between female characters about something other than a man - because they are always talking about the Doctor.
    If you look on Gallifrey Base, you'll find that's not true.

    Gallifrey Base has done it's own Bechdel Test and more Steven Moffat episodes have passed than with the one we're discussing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I thought considering the 50th episode and matts last episode this new season would involve exploring gallafray a bit more and bringing it back? Is this a wrong assumption to make because I think this season - well first half - will be focused on clara and finding out who missy is and what she wants!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinkpenguin)
    On occasion the criteria can be limited (eg multiple groups of characters with women who never meet each other, for example). But I don't think the 'have two women' requirement is a particularly taxing one, yet many shows and movies seem to fail at the first hurdle. The world is 50% women, it would be great if television would reflect that.

    Also I would argue that Moffat's problem is that he can only create 'strong independent women' ie women who are exactly the same, talk the same way, make the same choices, are 'feisty' or whatever. That is the problem. The women are cookie-cutter moulds of each other, whereas all the men have a variety of characteristics and motivations. It'd be great to see a range of women, even damsels in distress. Multifaceted, distinct characters are what is needed.

    The Bechdel test is a great starting point for discussing the female content in TV though, and I think the statistics do show that Moffat's record is nowhere near as good as RTD's.
    Yet the first thing that would happen if there was a timid female companion people would cry sexism by saying that women are portrayed as weak.

    You can't win in these situations because someone will find a problem with anything.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drbluebox)
    Yet the first thing that would happen if there was a timid female companion people would cry sexism by saying that women are portrayed as weak.

    You can't win in these situations because someone will find a problem with anything.
    Not necessarily, if the timid-ness was well-portrayed and explainable based on the character's life or experiences, then that's a well rounded character.

    If she was timid purely to facilitate the Doctor fixing or saving her, then that's a weak character as her personality can't exist without the Doctor interacting with her.

    I'll be clear about what my problem with Moffat has been again - all of his women have been very very similar. 'Feisty' and in love with the Doctor.

    The difference between Rose and Donna, however, was much stronger, and made them distinct and well-rounded female characters. Martha was a bit of a blip as she was a Rose-clone, but when they developed her in later series they redeemed her a little.

    I was enjoying Clara right up until the end of last season when it became clear that she was in love with the Doctor. Before that, she was autonomous, and despite having a similar personality to Amy, made distinct choices. But after? Nope.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The brief glimpse we saw for the next episode looks promising. Darleks (and not your stupid red, blue and white power ranger darleks) killing and the doctor trying to stop them. It looks potentially a darker episode which is good. I swear if there is any *bongs* *thumps* or any other stupid noises am going to just face palm and go watch something else.

    The only time back in the day was when tenant was smacking the tardis with a mallet! Not when someone gets knock unconscious.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IMakeSenseToNone)
    Paternoster gang - No need for so much development of them on what is Capaldi's first episode. I want him and Clara not unecessary scenes of Strax (who still is just a walking joke) giving Clara a medical. Also the d/s undertones didn't really sit well with me as a kids show and having the kiss be another kiss of necessity made it feel rather forced. We get that Jenny and Vastra are a thing, and that's brilliant and I believe them but I would hope we were slightly past that point.
    I feel these people are so shoehorned into the series. I don't even remember their origins, probably thanks to Moffatt's weird, overly complex 6th and 7th serieses. It's almost like they're saying to the audience "hey kids, whoa what is going on? Whoa they used to be villains! Whooo whoa [insert random quip about something contemporary which seems irrelevant to the time frame here]". There's no development and I think what annoys me most is how they're set up to be a generic rag tag group of detectives.

    It's like they want to do a spin off when all the spin offs suck, even Torchwood was basically a Doctor Who episode except with shoehorned swearing, nudity and violence, it never felt like a show for adults.

    Also, what was annoying me is how the makers constantly shoehorn homosexuality into the show but they don't have the balls to write a gay male companion's relationship with the Doctor. It's kind of like showing off some nonsense liberalism like a quota rather than actually meaning it. It's always 'hey there's another random gay extra in this episode showing off that they can show gay things on telly'. There's often no reason for any sexuality to be shown off, it's like they're trying to spite someone incredibly cheaply.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 28, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.