• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Doctor Who

I mainly disagree with: "Why the hell there are suddenly [swear word removed] of Daleks" in that quote.

The thing I mainly love about Moffat is that he doesn't come up with pointless ways of answering how villains come back. Look at the Silence and Weeping Angels, it is not clear where either of them directly come from and we do not know how many of them there are, how many they could be and how far they reach. That was RTD's biggest flaw, he killed the villain, then brought them back with some mediocre excuse and then repeated this several times. While there has not been an explanation for the Daleks being back this time, I believe Moffat has done this so he can bring them to how the Silence and Angels are, with it being unclear how many they are. It removes what was a tired format of killing everything off then bringing things back when they were meant to be dead.
 
Like I said right after watching the episode the whole Amy and Rory relationship thing annoyed me. Not because it was solved too quickly but because it shouldn’t have been there at all. It's annoying because since watching the episode I want to go back and watch it again but that one aspect of the plot has so far put me off.

So I suppose I do agree with the comments on that blog but I think it's being a bit sensational. Sure the points are correct but only a few I'd say are real deal breakers. Even the title (How Moffat Ruined Doctor Who For My Little Sister) is trying too hard to make us feel annoyed. It gives no hints as to why Moffat's episodes are bad but just tries to make us angry about a little girl being disappointed.

This reminds me why I don't read spoilers or reviews any more. If you look too hard at even the best episodes the cracks start to appear and then you can never go back and enjoy it like you did before.
 
Oh blimey.

After such a truly, truly promising start to this series, tonight's episode was a complete train crash, at least in my opinion. I mean, I don't even know where to start. Probably the worst culprit is just the sheer silliness throughout the episode - isn't that one of the many things that people complained about during the RTD era?

It's clear that the idea behind this episode was, of course, 'dinosaurs on a spaceship', into which a story seems to have been forced in with a very poor fit (I don't really think a concept like that could ever have a great story to go with it). You've then got Nefertiti in there for pretty much no reason, stupid robots being, well, stupid and inane. Rory's Dad has his world blown apart, as he's suddenly confronted with a deluge of life-changing facts (the Universe is full of life, spaceships fly near Earth, one of them materialised around him, he suddenly meets an alien that looks human, this alien can travel through space and time, and to cap it all off, his son and daughter-in-law have been gallivanting with him, and then within six hours he's flying a space ship himself), and what's his reaction? He drops a light bulb. That's more or less it. Such lazy, lazy writing - why even bring him into the picture? Well, it seems that perhaps even they realised this, went back and wrote in these dual control things, so that at least he had some purpose. At least that how it seems to me.

That's just scratching the surface, and doesn't even touch on things such as the innuendo and more pointless flirting.

Last weeks episode, though not flawless, was very, very good. I'd possibly go as far as to say it just about restored my faith in this series. This episode blew it right off. Terrible :(

Edit: Forgot to mention the killing of Solomon (hundreds of things I forgot to mention probably, but this is one which stuck out). Very much not in-keeping with how the Doctor's been portrayed up until now - I honestly expected him to somehow divert or deactivate the missiles at the last moment, leaving Solomon hurtling into space alone, defenceless and powerless, but alive. Not a character development that I'm liking the look of.
 
Wow, I loved this episode, fun and laughs all the way through.

Rory's dad was brilliant, I loved how him and Rory interacted, and him asking the Doctor for something, and then seeing him sitting their eating his Sandwiches and drinking his tea while looking down on Earth was Brilliant. Also, I thought it was a nice touch, that he went from someone who lived inside his bubble, doing the same thing, to going out and exploring the world.

I too struggle with the Doctor killing Solomon, but the Doctor, knowing what he (Solomon) had done, which was killing all the Silurian that had been in Stasis on the ship, the fact that he threatened to kill Rory's dad, and killed a Dinosaur in cold blood meant he did not deserve a choice, as the Doctor had already witnessed him make several "wrong" choices.

As for the Robots, they reminded me of Tweedle Dee and Dum, and if they had belonged to a different master, I think they could of been quite cute.

So overall, I enjoyed the episode, possible more than the first episode, and I am looking forward to the rest of the season.

Ian
 
Initially last night I agreed with your post entirely, Islander. Although after watching the episode a second time, it's certainly grown on me. It's one of those episodes that needs to be watched a second time to appreciate it more (although on the whole it's not good for casual viewers).

After last weeks episode it was clear the second episode would never live up to the same standard. Although I did enjoy this weeks one. It too a calmer, more fun approach to a 'Who storyline whilst keeping that dark side of the show with it in good balance.

The dinosaurs worked quite well and honestly I didn't expect much of them in this episode. The only niggle I have is that it was never clearly explained why they were on the ship. Why did the Silurians have a ship full of them? Where were they taking the dinosaurs? What did they intend to do with the dinosaurs? While I like mysteries, bringing into the story that it was a Silurian arc just brought to me more questions. It explains how the dinosaurs got onto the spaceship, but it didn't explain why they were on there - and for the Silurians to be doing that seems somewhat bizarre.

Having Riddell and Queen Nefertiti seemed, again, a bizarre thing to do. Why did the Doctor need a team? Surly his faithful companions would have been good enough? While Queen Nefertiti fits into the storyline towards the end, having these both characters brought into it seemed all but random. However, saying that, it did bring something interesting to the show. It's just a shame we didn't get to learn much about the characters or see much development either.

Rory's dad, yet again, a bizarre thing to do. However, I did love his character and I find it a big shame they've introduced us to Rory's dad so late on in the Pond's life on 'Who. I would have loved to see him be introduced to us last series, or even series five!

The Doctor killing Solomon was an interesting one. However Solomon is probably one of the most ruthless villains we've had in a very long while. So this could be the exploration of when someone (something) makes the Doctor's blood boil that much, could he be pushed to killing them? In this episode, the answer was clearly yes. Although I hope this theme is ditched next series and we see a lighter hearted, fun Doctor.

The main flaw of this episode is that there were clearly too many ideas in mind and instead of making the cuts here and there to have a story that flows more well they have just throw every single idea in and tried to tell us the whole story in a short time frame. If this were a two parter the story may have flown far better. But because of all of these ideas it lead to a rushed story, with too many characters in frame and not enough time for the viewer to easily understand what was going on.

It's not the worst episode since Moffat took over Doctor Who, but I doubt this will be one that stays in memory for years to come. I rate it 6/10.
 
I thought it made reference to the Silurian trying to save the dinosaurs, as they could see meteorite storm coming, that was going to end all life on the planet, and therefore they built this arc to save themselves, and the current animals inhabiting the planet.

Ian
 
Just to respond to a few things, Rowe the blog you linked to was to me the moanings of an RTD lover who just doesn't want to like anything moffat does. The weakest part of the first episode was the Rory - Amy relationship but i have seen much worse.

As for this weeks episode, it's one of the "comic" episodes, we always get one or two of them and they are always quite entertaining and in this case no-more far fetched than anything that has gone before in Doctor Who. The whole argument Islander about a light-bulb dropping to demonstarte shock being lazy-writing seems a slightly strained one. There was more of a reaction to the situation than that but in a 45min show you have to move the pace a little bit. The only characters where you have time to give a true arc to the "discovering the doctor" situation are the main companions because you have episodes to do it in.

Those who seem to hate Moffet i feel never really understood the classic series which where often completely bonkers and the realm of the silly. I just enjoy the fact we no longer have RTD and Tennant destroying the series.
 
Dave said:
Those who seem to hate Moffet i feel never really understood the classic series which where often completely bonkers and the realm of the silly. I just enjoy the fact we no longer have RTD and Tennant destroying the series.
Click to expand...
Lol, and those who love Moffat seem (on the whole) unable to see any flaws in anything he does :p.

I'm a firm believer that it was time for RTD and Tennant to leave. RTD's episodes were, on the whole, terrible, and Tennant, though he started off brilliantly (truly brilliantly), became more, I dunno, 'big headed' as the series continued. I really couldn't fault him in series 2, and series 3 he was alright (shame about Martha), but thereafter he just became too God-like (partially his fault, though no doubt the fault of the writers as well).

I'll also be the first to agree that Moffat's episodes during the RTD era were stunning, truly brilliant, especially The Empty Child/Doctor Dances and Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead.

{Wasn't quite so fond of Blink, it was a clever storyline (the kind of 'clever' that works in a single episode, but not, in my opinion, over an entire series, as Moffat has tried), but I didn't like some of the writing ("wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey"... ugh...), and it was too Doctor-lite for my liking (though of course that's entirely not Moffat's fault, but rather RTD's)}

However, as has been said, I really, really don't like what Moffat's done having been given a whole series. I can't comment on how similar it is to classic Who, as I've seen very little of it (it's worth remembering that a very large proportion - possibly a majority - of the current audience is in the same position, having seen little/none of the classic series), but I can compare it to new series 1-4, and I preferred those (well, Rose through to Journey's End at any rate. The following RTD specials are definitely open to debate...).

There's no doubt that the RTD era was going sour and needed to end, that there were some dud episodes (Love and Monsters ranks well below anything Moffat has been involved in, last couple of series included), and that Tennant's departure was long overdue (though he started off very, very well), but bearing all of that in mind, I still don't like what Moffat's done at all.
 
Islander said:
Dave said:
Those who seem to hate Moffet i feel never really understood the classic series which where often completely bonkers and the realm of the silly. I just enjoy the fact we no longer have RTD and Tennant destroying the series.
Click to expand...
Lol, and those who love Moffat seem (on the whole) unable to see any flaws in anything he does :p.
Click to expand...

I'm no particular lover of moffat I do however rate him above RTD, as said I agree the Rory Amy split was silly and a lot of last season was iffy. However some seem to nitpick at odd things to get at Moffat. Both episodes this season have been great. The first being suitable dark the latter being quirky. the episodes I like from RTD era where always written by external writers (not just Moffat) with the exception of the Davros finale. as much as last season was poor it also had arguable the best new DW episode ever (the doctors wife)

I do worry about next weeks episode though... It looks like one purely to please American audiences but we will see
 
I wish series arcs would change back to how they where in the RTD era,with just little things like the Vote saxon series.
 
Tim said:
So I suppose I do agree with the comments on that blog but I think it's being a bit sensational. Sure the points are correct but only a few I'd say are real deal breakers. Even the title (How Moffat Ruined Doctor Who For My Little Sister) is trying too hard to make us feel annoyed. It gives no hints as to why Moffat's episodes are bad but just tries to make us angry about a little girl being disappointed.
Click to expand...

But the show is aimed at children and families with the blog plot directly stating what was wrong with the episode, drawing back to such aspirational characters like Amy and River Song next to the Doctor, that a 11 year old quickly picked up on and questioned directly to her sister because she didn't understand it. She has a right to be disappointed! Granted this is just one speck of the audience we've been given a blog post about but this is an example of Moffat distancing the age range he is catering to.

The blog post itself, I don't understand how it is a bit sensational or trying to make us feel annoyed. It's a publicly written opinion supported by examples from the show and giving viable criticism towards Moffat, pointing out flaws to make us aware. The author isn't trying to ram an opinion down our throats or gain sympathy; she's stating what she found wrong within good reason.

Dave said:
Just to respond to a few things, Rowe the blog you linked to was to me the moanings of an RTD lover who just doesn't want to like anything moffat does. The weakest part of the first episode was the Rory - Amy relationship but i have seen much worse.
Click to expand...

The blog is fronted by a series of people who have found several listed faults with Moffat's writing from criticism to the plot holes. It is no way endorsing Davies, the most they praise him is through the solid facts from the Bechdel Test but even that is just showing the major difference in writing between them, no opinions by anybody stand in that article. The blog post I linked to actually doesn't mention any Davies whatsoever nor supports any other writer in the process.

Dave said:
Those who seem to hate Moffet i feel never really understood the classic series which where often completely bonkers and the realm of the silly.
Click to expand...

I disagree on the brief point with the classic series, it wasn't bonkers on a regular basis. It was eccentric, definitely, and used comedy to lighten the mood/distract enemies but a fair proportion of the serials broadcast were dark and quite intense even for the young family audience at the time. But I digress; We're not focusing on the classic series here, we're focusing on the show format that exists today and it shouldn't be assumed that those who dislike Moffat's writing have automatically seen the classic series with little to no understanding of how the show is played out.
 
It wasn't bonkers but it was eccentric is a slight oxymoron but that's by-the-by, the blog doesn't use fact it takes points about the show and wraps opinion to them which is what a blog is and that's fine but reading it hasn't changed my opinion on the episode.

My issue with RTD was his big red reset the universe solution to every plot, something I was disappointed about Moffat using at the end of the last season but he generally avoids it. If I have any criticism of the last episode it was the randomness of adding Nefertiti and the hunter guy in the mix rather than Rory's dad who actually added something to the drama.
 
Doctor Who

Apparently "Oswin" means silence. And the Daleks were asking doctor who?, so silence did fall when the question was asked :p

260002_374971092573186_875397440_n.jpg
 
Rowe said:
Tim said:
So I suppose I do agree with the comments on that blog but I think it's being a bit sensational. Sure the points are correct but only a few I'd say are real deal breakers. Even the title (How Moffat Ruined Doctor Who For My Little Sister) is trying too hard to make us feel annoyed. It gives no hints as to why Moffat's episodes are bad but just tries to make us angry about a little girl being disappointed.
Click to expand...

But the show is aimed at children and families with the blog plot directly stating what was wrong with the episode, drawing back to such aspirational characters like Amy and River Song next to the Doctor, that a 11 year old quickly picked up on and questioned directly to her sister because she didn't understand it. She has a right to be disappointed! Granted this is just one speck of the audience we've been given a blog post about but this is an example of Moffat distancing the age range he is catering to.

The blog post itself, I don't understand how it is a bit sensational or trying to make us feel annoyed. It's a publicly written opinion supported by examples from the show and giving viable criticism towards Moffat, pointing out flaws to make us aware. The author isn't trying to ram an opinion down our throats or gain sympathy; she's stating what she found wrong within good reason.
Click to expand...
Well maybe it's just me but I just found the way it was written seemed more like a rant than anything else, hence why I said sensational. But... like I said the points are correct and I can't fault the examples. However they don’t really bother me. I enjoyed last week’s episode (more or less) but if I dwell on the points that annoyed me and stop enjoying the episode then it’s only my enjoyment that’s being lost.
Of course that doesn’t stop some points annoying me but they tend to be issues that make the whole episode annoying such as the Amy Rory split or when they spent the whole of series 3 implying how Rose was much better than Martha.

Onto this week’s episode: I enjoyed it but felt it would have been a lot more enjoyable if they hadn’t crammed so much into it. Each of those characters could have made their own interesting story. I’d say this is my main issue with Moffat’s Doctor Who series. He always feels the need to cram so much into an episode that most of it doesn’t get a look in.
I wasn’t really bothered by the death of Solomon. Ever since the first Christmas episode The Doctor has been a man of “no second chances”. Solomon had about 3 or 4 second chances. Sure it was out of character for The Doctor to just close the door on him and not let him chose to use the auto-pilot but not so out of character that it was unbelievable, in my opinion anyway.
 
Mixed feelings about "Dinosaur on a Spaceship" for me. Admittedly once I got over the initial giddiness of the dinosaurs and the effects I started to enjoy it less as it went on.

Again, I think this episode could have benefited from being 60 minutes long instead of 45. I felt like there were too many companions this week (I could have done without Nefertiti and Riddel) which dragged the story back a bit, which on the whole I thought was fine. Golf-ball fetching Triceratops? No thanks. Doctor, Rory and Brian riding the triceratops? I liked that. Mitchell and Webb robots? No thanks. Wasn't a big fan of the toilet humour in this one and I certainly thought the line about "breaking in Nefertiti with pleasure" was too dark for both the show and felt especially out of place within the episode. I actually cringed at that.

Mark Williams and David Bradley were the highlights of the episode for me. The scenes between the Doctor and Solomon were also fantastic! To be honest I think Solomon has been one of the best villains in NewWho so far, but I think he'd have had a greater potential to shine in a darker story and this one felt more like a RTD-era fun romp. (Although I'd liken it to "Gridlock" as opposed to the OTT "kitchen sink episodes".) Oh and I'd like to point out that the CGI and the effects were gorgeous! I did think it was visually stunning as an episode! :)

In conclusion, it was big, it was bold, it was fun but it was let down a bit by unnecessary characters (IMO), some terrible attempts at humour and the fact it was very rushed. Far from the worst episode in my opinion but far weaker than last week's episode.

7.7/10

----------

So back to the blog which Rowe posted. I have to agree with many who have said it seemed like a sensational rant against Moffat. The fact that she has nothing positive to say about AotD says to me she can't construct a good argument and writing that "she couldn't be bothered" sort of says that she's just a bitter fan who doesn't like change and wants to complain for the hell of it. The fact that her sister supposedly complained that "everything is in space all the time" suggests she clearly doesn't know what the show is about.

As for some of her points:

"Why the hell there are suddenly [swear word removed] of Daleks."
All the way back to "The Eleventh Hour" the Doctor makes a big thing about Amy not remembering the Daleks. I assume that's because they've been erased by the cracks in time so when BigBang v2 happens they get sent back like Amy's parents. Easy.

"Why the Doctor has a new nickname (The Predator) that is also apparently age-old that we’ve never heard of"
Why is this such a big issue? The Doctor's been given many nicknames in the past? "The Destroyer of Worlds", "Bringer of Darkness", "The Oncoming Storm", "The Lonely God". This just seems like nit-picking for the sake of it.

-How Skaro has magically appeared again,
It was in the television movie if I recall? I might be wrong but it certainly doesn't look like it's been left in such a good state anyway...

-Why Moffat thinks we all have the attention span of five-year-olds (a continuing theme)which means he has to break up an important couple off-screen and then BOOM reunite them in the same episode before it even sinks in and we can actually Give A [swear word removed] (Again, a continuing theme – Moffat, I am not going to Give A [swear word removed] about Mels if you cram her down my throat in a montage, and then shoot her, and then have her be River Song all in the space of ten minutes),
This one makes no sense to me and I disagree strongly that Moffat thinks we have the attention span of five year olds, surely if they had broken up on-screen and got back together that would be seen as spoon-feeding the audience? Admittedly, I agree the introduction of Mels into River Song is poorly done and should have been built up in another episode but there were plenty of hints beforehand (girl regenerating at the end of "Day of the Moon"). Moffat likes to leave clues for us and it seems to me the poster is just thinking with retrospect to the one episode or she's just not following on.

-Why Amy’s only concern with the whole children thing is ‘oooh poor Rory’ and not ‘actually I was trapped by a freaky cult and forced to give birth against my will so yeah, no, won’t be doing that again’ – Seriously, when she said “I can’t have children” I IMMEDIATELY assumed she meant that it would be mentally too traumatic for her.
Again... why is this a complaint? Isn't being infertile one of the most traumatising feelings for a woman to feel? Amy has a sense of feeling useless because she can't provide. Basically what this poster is saying is "Amy only cares about Rory"... and that's supposed to be a bad thing why?

The Rory thing (quote too long)
Probably one of the few things of the blog I agree with. I thought it was a very un-Rory like thing to say, even though it's quite apparent to the audience that Rory feels that way, you can tell his reluctance to sign the divorce papers at the beginning of the episode.

-So many other things. Too many other things
I think this to me, highlights a poor argument. You can be bothered to write up a rant about AotD on an Internet blog but you can't be bothered to list all the things you have a problem with the episode? I just think this to me confirms that the author of said blog has a very narrow-minded view on the matter and either wants some good internet traffic or she's just a rabid-hater. I think it's fair to dislike something and I can emphasise that the blogger liked the way the show was before, but if you can't be bothered (to use her words) to justify your opinion accordingly then I don't see how I can take it seriously? I'm surprised that so many of you having enjoyed AotD changed your mind so abruptly after reading it.

I realise that I come across as a bit of a Moffat-fanatic here (which I am to some extent) but I can understand where he went wrong last season with far too much emphasis on the River Song arc. The lack of an overarching series arc so far says to me that he knows where he went wrong, and he's listening to feedback when planning this series. I also get a vibe that he's a very arrogant man (particularly from his Twitter) but I genuinely think he's very imaginative and he's pushing the show (particularly Series 7 so far) into the right direction.

Oh and for everyone who says Moffat's work is no good for the kids may want to watch this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QhliTHMDcY[/youtube]

Now that was a very long reply so i think I'll end my waffling there. I've been typing for the past forty minutes and I think another viewing of "Asylum of the Daleks" and a cuppa tea is just what I need to bring myself back to reality again. :p
 
It's interesting to note that Moffat deleted his Twitter account some time on Saturday evening, presumably because of the amount of flaming he was receiving (he had recently tweeted "Forgive my ignorance – is there a way to limit who can follow you and Tweet you?”).

It would be interesting to know if this had got worse over time, or whether he'd just had enough of it. To be clear, I of course think that this is one of the downsides of Twitter, that morons think it's OK to flame people who are otherwise inaccessible. I'm just curious as to whether the number of morons has increased, as I'd expect them to be somewhat proportional to the number of sane, civilised people who dislike the Moffat era of Who.
 
Interesting episode, i like how they show the doctors convictions faltering and the need for him to have companions to remember his mercy. I personally like stories where the protagonist isn't perfect and has to fight with the dark side of their soul (Terry Pratchetts Sam Vimes character is a prime example)
 
Well, this weeks episode was a bit... meh. The angels next week hold some promise, but overall this series has been somewhat lacking.

I know people complained about the story-archs getting too complicated, but this series could really use at least something underlying to tie them together, particularly as it'll be the last with Amy and Rory, and we still have many unanswered questions from the last two series'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top