|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 4, 2012 0:42:40 GMT -5
I'm surprised no one has commented on the season premiere of "Doctor Who" yet. What did people think?
I thought it was pretty good.
And how do people feel about his new soon-to-be companion?
Yes, that was her --Oswin, even though she had been transformed into a Dalek. It remains to be seen how they'll undo that predicament.
I think she's very cute and quirky.
I wonder what Karen Gillan is going to do after she moves on from this show.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 4, 2012 9:40:33 GMT -5
Karen Gillan needs to come to America and become a big star. I haven't read anything from any fan of Doctor Who that had anything negative to say about her.
I did like the Oswin character. It was a good intro to the new actress, whether she plays that role or not.
She was likeable.
I don't know if I want her to be Oswin only because I feel the companion should be from our era. The companion is our eyes and ears and someone we can relate to.
It's not the same if she comes from the year 5043 or whatever.
So I'm kind of hoping for an ancestor.
It wouldn't be unprecedented for it to be a different character.
Freema Agyeman appeared on an episode of Doctor Who before she was Martha Jones. The cool part is that they actually decided to acknowledge it, and say that Martha was the original character's cousin.
Strong genes in that family.
As for the premiere itself, it shows how important having a great writer running the show is.
Moffat wrote a great story. Didn't really like the whole Amy and Rory breaking up thing, but Moffat used it to firmly address the "Rory loved Amy more" issue.
Despite that great scene, I still don't buy it. Amy did once hit on the Doctor. And let's face it--she is waaaay too hot for a guy like him to land.
The reveal that Oswin was a Dalek was outstanding. Even better was the big clue which mirrored internet nitpicking--where did she get the milk to make a souffle?
I also wonder if they are leading into the 50th anniversary special, which will answer the question--Doctor Who?
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 4, 2012 13:45:12 GMT -5
Karen Gillan needs to come to America and become a big star. I haven't read anything from any fan of Doctor Who that had anything negative to say about her.
She has some issues with booze apparently though, which could also account for some extra pounds.I did like the Oswin character. It was a good intro to the new actress, whether she plays that role or not. She was likeable. I don't know if I want her to be Oswin only because I feel the companion should be from our era. The companion is our eyes and ears and someone we can relate to. It's not the same if she comes from the year 5043 or whatever. So I'm kind of hoping for an ancestor. It wouldn't be unprecedented for it to be a different character. Freema Agyeman appeared on an episode of Doctor Who before she was Martha Jones. The cool part is that they actually decided to acknowledge it, and say that Martha was the original character's cousin.
Karen Gillan also appeared in the series prior to being cast as Amy Pond by the way.As for the premiere itself, it shows how important having a great writer running the show is. Moffat wrote a great story. Didn't really like the whole Amy and Rory breaking up thing, but Moffat used it to firmly address the "Rory loved Amy more" issue. Despite that great scene, I still don't buy it. Amy did once hit on the Doctor. And let's face it--she is waaaay too hot for a guy like him to land. I also wonder if they are leading into the 50th anniversary special, which will answer the question--Doctor Who? |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 4, 2012 14:54:28 GMT -5
I don't read Spoilers, so if this article contains any information as to whether this new companion will have any ties whatsoever to Oswin, please let me know without going into too many details.
Over at Blastr:Steven Moffat teases how new Who companion will change the Doctor Doctor Who showrunner Steven Moffat is at it again, teasing us on how the arrival of the Doctor's (Matt Smith) new companion (Jenna-Louise Coleman) and the heartbreaking departure of Amy (Karen Gillan) and Rory (Arthur Darvill) will affect our beloved Time Lord. *MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD* MORE: blastr.com/2012/09/steven-moffat-teases-how.php
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 5, 2012 7:31:43 GMT -5
There's no crime at being attracted to attractive women, and Gillan is very attractive.
I actually like Moffat far more than Davies. Davies seems to be a bit too concerned with throwing little political things into the show, like how every couple seemed to be interracial. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the Moffat keeps his politics out of it.
But I also feel that Davies was underrated. He had peaks and valleys, and while Davies at his worst was worse than anything Moffat does, Davies at his best was pretty damn good.
I do think Moffat was better, but I liked Davies' work too.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Sept 7, 2012 17:29:48 GMT -5
A Who Junkie's Not-So-Humble Opinion:
One of the best Dalek episodes ever ! This is one of the best since Genesis of the Daleks way back when. A great premise, great characters and a fantastic mix of drama, pathos and ..of course menace. If this season keeps up this standard of quality I will be one happy camper. Many people have said that they lowered the budget when Tennant left and that may be true but I think the stories are better. This is also a perfect episode for the uninitiated. Tell a friend to watch this and dare them not to like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 10, 2012 9:26:02 GMT -5
Moving on to the second episode...
They are starting to show some subtle signs about Amy and Rory leaving. Just simple looks that Matt Smith conveys something. Seems like maybe the Doctor knows something that he's not telling us.
I don't think this episode was as good as the week before, but I still liked it.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Sept 21, 2012 6:52:57 GMT -5
blastr.com/2012/09/x-former-doctors-come-to.phpEveryone here knows that Peter Davison is one of my favorite Doctors and one of my favorite British actors. But the above story is a testament to what a class act this guy is. As a Who fan and a cancer survivor, I salute you sir ! 
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 24, 2012 7:46:00 GMT -5
One more episode with the Ponds.
Unless they somehow erase them from existence entirely, it would seem that despite Gillan's claims to the contrary, they absolutely can bring the Ponds back. Within the plot, they have traveled with the Doctor for 10 years. That's a lot of unseen stories. Technically, for all we know, they met the post-Matt Smith Doctor.
Not saying they ever WILL bring them back, but they could.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 24, 2012 16:40:58 GMT -5
I haven't gotten to check the latest episode out yet --will post after I do if it's worth the time to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Sept 25, 2012 6:50:55 GMT -5
I'm a bit behind as well, but I'm sure they will find a way to bring The Ponds back if they really want to do so. My only complaint with the later seasons of Doctor Who is the over emphasis on The Companions. As much as I like Amy And Rory, they're great characters, they focused too much on them and they dominated the show as did Rose. People watch this show to see The Doctor. It's time for a change and I will remember these companions fondly. If they come back a few seasons later for a few episodes that would be fun. But let;s move on. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 25, 2012 7:04:13 GMT -5
Based on the interviews with Gillan, they wanted to make the Ponds' exit final.
So I'm expecting a death, though obviously I don't know.
I think that would be a shame though, and it's something I simply don't get.
You have a highly successful TV run with a character that clearly people love. I do believe that you should stick with that role as long as the show is on, though in the case of Doctor Who, which has such a long and continuous run in general, I get that actors leave. The show is designed for that.
But why make the exit permanent? Why kill a character or do something that makes a return impossible?
Cheapen the exit? Who cares? Why would an exit be cheapened if a character returns for a guest spot a few years later?
Think about that in real life. You leave a job, does that mean you can't once in awhile visit your former co-workers?
You graduate high school--does that mean you can't go back to an alumni function?
Hell, some people leave a job and return a few years later.
It doesn't cheapen their exit.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 25, 2012 11:37:27 GMT -5
Unless they somehow erase them from existence entirely, it would seem that despite Gillan's claims to the contrary, they absolutely can bring the Ponds back.
However, what this latest episode also made glaringly obvious, which is one of the major problems about this series, is how easy it is for the doctor to return to an exact moment in time whenever he feels so inclined. That means that whenever an unwanted tragedy occurs, he should be able to go back five minutes or an hour in time and simply undo yet, yet he doesn't. That's always irked me about this series. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 25, 2012 11:46:03 GMT -5
Based on the interviews with Gillan, they wanted to make the Ponds' exit final. So I'm expecting a death, though obviously I don't know. I think that would be a shame though, and it's something I simply don't get. You have a highly successful TV run with a character that clearly people love. I do believe that you should stick with that role as long as the show is on, though in the case of Doctor Who, which has such a long and continuous run in general, I get that actors leave. The show is designed for that. But why make the exit permanent? Why kill a character or do something that makes a return impossible? Cheapen the exit? Who cares? Why would an exit be cheapened if a character returns for a guest spot a few years later? Think about that in real life. You leave a job, does that mean you can't once in awhile visit your former co-workers? You graduate high school--does that mean you can't go back to an alumni function? Hell, some people leave a job and return a few years later. It doesn't cheapen their exit.
If I'm right about Steven Moffat having walked back the intention of killing off one or both of the Ponds, it's possible that Gillan and Darvill had second thoughts about letting that happen as well. After all, they don't know where their careers will go after this and whether it'll be up or down. They may move on to bigger and better things, or they may find themselves not getting attractive offers, in which case they may want to return so as to stay in the business and keep working. So it's possible that Gillan too had a change of heart about her character getting killed off.
We'll know in a matter of days at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by gavin1701 on Sept 25, 2012 13:29:52 GMT -5
However, what this latest episode also made glaringly obvious, which is one of the major problems about this series, is how easy it is for the doctor to return to an exact moment in time whenever he feels so inclined. That means that whenever an unwanted tragedy occurs, he should be able to go back five minutes or an hour in time and simply undo yet, yet he doesn't. That's always irked me about this series. [/color][/quote] That's actually been addressed twice during the Davies era. Firstly, it would be weak dramatically if this was the case. It's much better for it to be HARD for him NOT to do that, than it is EASY for him to do that. Otherwise any jeopardy faced by any character can simply be erased or undone. That's very poor drama. The first episode they dealt with this was when Rose undid her father's death. Time ripped apart and creatures from another dimension invaded until it was put right. The second time was when the Doctor took it upon himself to become God by changing the fates of the people on mars. It led to the suicide of the captain and the realisation that he'd gone too far violating one of his ethical codes -- you can't change historical events. There are consequences and ethical considerations. And they aren't allowed under any circumstance (except cheap parlour tricks) to cross back into their own time stream. Just like Superman has his code of honour and doesn't kill people, the Doctor has his timelord code of honour which serves as a dramatic device to the audience and doesn't cheat them with cheap time travel tricks to save the day (where is the tension in that?). As for Amy and Rory, Doctor Who never stays with the same actors for very long its a constantly evolving and changing show. Many actors have come and gone and been forgotten and never returned. I guess these guys wanted to go out with a bang and never be forgotten rather than come back for cameos which is fair enough. It will probably play better dramatically if it is final rather than a see you later exit. The theme seems to be who is the doctor? Is he a healer? Or is he a feared warrior? Such a tragic even is going to have more payoff if its final. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 26, 2012 16:54:37 GMT -5
Interestingly enough, it's clear that the Doctor can change some events, but not others. They use the "fixed point" as an explanation, although it never really is clear what makes a point fixed.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 26, 2012 16:56:40 GMT -5
That's actually been addressed twice during the Davies era. Firstly, it would be weak dramatically if this was the case. It's much better for it to be HARD for him NOT to do that, than it is EASY for him to do that. Otherwise any jeopardy faced by any character can simply be erased or undone. That's very poor drama. The first episode they dealt with this was when Rose undid her father's death. Time ripped apart and creatures from another dimension invaded until it was put right.. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 26, 2012 16:59:53 GMT -5
Interestingly enough, it's clear that the Doctor can change some events, but not others. They use the "fixed point" as an explanation, although it never really is clear what makes a point fixed. |
|
|
|
Post by gavin1701 on Sept 27, 2012 2:47:09 GMT -5
Take for example the incident with Tennant's Doctor: rather than going back five minutes in time to save Ursula in "Love and Monsters", he manages to salvage what's left of her with his sonic screwdriver, and leaves poor Elton with a paving stone and her face absorbed into it instead of a full-bodied girlfriend --utterly ridiculous! Ursula wasn't a part of established history, nor a fixed moment in time, so he should have been able to do more to help by saving her. [/color][/quote] That would be violating the timelord code of travelling back in your own time stream. Once he's become part of established events he can't go further back into them to alter the outcome. In this case he simply arrived too late. And as far as I'm aware it was nothing he did that caused this, just bad timing on the TARDIS part. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 27, 2012 6:51:38 GMT -5
Not all fixed points are major events. And if you think about it, from the Doctor's point of view, no point in history is years earlier. They can be minutes earlier, or years in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 27, 2012 18:47:19 GMT -5
That would be violating the timelord code of travelling back in your own time stream. Once he's become part of established events he can't go further back into them to alter the outcome. In this case he simply arrived too late. And as far as I'm aware it was nothing he did that caused this, just bad timing on the TARDIS part.
And I also wonder if he's ever crossed back into his own timeline by accident. I guess that the TARDIS would protect him from that inadvertently happening, unless something were to go wrong with the TARDIS perhaps. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 27, 2012 19:03:27 GMT -5
Not all fixed points are major events. And if you think about it, from the Doctor's point of view, no point in history is years earlier. They can be minutes earlier, or years in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 28, 2012 18:48:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 28, 2012 19:01:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gavin1701 on Sept 29, 2012 3:50:27 GMT -5
By fixed events they mean historical happenings that affect the course of history... in the Mars episode it was about the Captain's grand-daughter who made human history in the space programme as a result of her grandmothers heroics on Mars in the face of death. There's one flashback to when the Captain was a small girl and she's scanned by a Dalek and even the Dalek refuses to exterminate her because of her role in history (which is kind of strange if you think about it as they are always on earth trying to change history by taking over the planet).
The only times I can think of when the TARDIS has gone back into its own timestream are multi Doctor stories: The Time Crash with Tennant and Davison, and that was put down to the rebuilding of the TARDIS after the Master butchered it, and there was a 6th Doctor story in which he met himself as the 2nd Doctor, Colin Baker and Patrick Troughton, but the 2nd Doctor was brainwashed by their enemy and by memory had no recollection of the event.
As for the topless picture.... I like the way the show is called "Room on top!" !!! Nice find!
|
|
|
|
Post by gavin1701 on Sept 29, 2012 3:54:49 GMT -5
I can't find in that article where it says she is a relative. It says at one point that the Doctor refers to Clara as "Oswin". That article was dated 16th August, well before anyone knew that she was appearing in episode 1 and that she was a Dalek. The fan theory is that Oswin transmatted inside the TARDIS as well before the asylum was destroyed and that somehow the TARDIS has transformed her into human form again -- not inconceivable as we've seen the TARDIS energy before and it can take out armies.
|
|
|
|
Post by gavin1701 on Sept 30, 2012 6:45:36 GMT -5
Really enjoyed Doctor Who although I can't for the life of me understand the logic of the story. SPOILERS....... Why can't the doctor use River's time device to visit the Ponds? Why can't he go back in time a year earlier and wait for their arrival in Manhattan -- he's been whizzing around for hundreds of years on his own? Why can't the Doctor go to an adjacent state to Manhattan and get the train? They died there, but doesn't mean he can't see them, visit them or have more adventures with them... I think it would have been more dramatic to kill them with finality than have these head banging questions! Oh well it's only a story/fiction... Right I'm now off to dissect the Game of Thrones finale!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 30, 2012 13:30:06 GMT -5
SPOILERS
I agree with some of the criticism. It doesn't make sense at all. RIVER will meet the Ponds again, to write the book, so why CAN'T the Doctor get to them?
And the idea that the TARDIS can't get to them makes no sense to me.
Ok, so maybe he can't get to 1938? What about 1939? 1940? 1941?
If he can't get to NYC, what about New Jersey? California?
How much of history is closed off to him now?
It certainly doesn't feel final.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 30, 2012 14:32:43 GMT -5
Really enjoyed Doctor Who although I can't for the life of me understand the logic of the story. SPOILERS....... Why can't the doctor use River's time device to visit the Ponds? Why can't he go back in time a year earlier and wait for their arrival in Manhattan -- he's been whizzing around for hundreds of years on his own? Why can't the Doctor go to an adjacent state to Manhattan and get the train?
It took a week, but you finally caught up with me. 
LMAO. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 30, 2012 14:46:54 GMT -5
SPOILERS > > >I agree with some of the criticism. It doesn't make sense at all. RIVER will meet the Ponds again, to write the book, so why CAN'T the Doctor get to them? And the idea that the TARDIS can't get to them makes no sense to me. Ok, so maybe he can't get to 1938? What about 1939? 1940? 1941? If he can't get to NYC, what about New Jersey? California? How much of history is closed off to him now? It certainly doesn't feel final.
Although I do agree with you in the sense that it didn't have a clear finality to it. I took the Doctor at his word that he wouldn't ever be able to see them again because of what they chose to do, and clearly Moffat did have serious reservations about killing them off as I said the other day, so he wanted to keep them alive, but the paradox angle with them still being alive in the world and our universe and his somehow not being able to get to them, whereas River could, as evidenced by her comments at the end about having a story to write, leaves one just scratching his or head and saying, "Huh? What??" basically.
And I still want to jump in bed with Karen Gillan, so there's another itch that will never be scratched apparently. |
|
