If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mirror.co.uk)   How will The Doctor pick up his new 20-something set of boobs? Will there be any good souffle recipes? And why does the Doctor have a motorcycle? Are motorcycles cool now? It's Doctor Who: 'The Bells of St. John', 8 PM on BBC America   (mirror.co.uk) divider line 221
    More: Interesting, Doctor Who, boobs, physicians, St. John, souffle, whovians, recipes  
•       •       •

3014 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Mar 2013 at 7:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



221 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-31 12:08:11 PM

Girion47: Hebalo: Girion47: I loved the homage to Amy Pond in this episode.

You're the worst kind of person.

I never denied that.

And I happened to like Amy, and I feel that 11 is far better than 10.  Hell 9 is better than 10.

Rose Tyler=Worst Companion.


Nope. It's Pond. She started out fine, then grew irritating in record time, and hung around for the worst season in the reboot, made it such.
 
2013-03-31 12:22:02 PM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: dennysgod: One interesting note in regards to the mysterious "lady in the shop" that gave Clara the TARDIS number is that in the BBC shop channel where you can buy DVD's and stuff for the description of Season 1 with Eccleston it refers to the Doctors new companion as "His new assistant is Rose (Billie Piper), a shop-girl from the present day".

Except the Doctor blew up her shop in 2005.


Folks, Moffat's in charge.  Don't look for answers or try to theorize.  Whatever you do, you will end up sorely disapointed when it comes to the end and he has placed a premium on plucking the ol' heart strings rather than come up with something that makes any sense.  I still watch the show, but with little of the same sense of excitement or interest I have since its reboot.  They need to switch showrunners, and fast.

\yes, I hate Sherlock, too
\\any reasonable person who watched Baskervilles would, too
 
2013-03-31 12:25:18 PM
On the clip on controversy, I like to think it is your standard DW continuity error/that was his emergency protocol bowtie.

Mind you,all the bow ties he wears are "too perfect" that they are probably clip-ons, BUT in the first Matt Smith episode, he does debate between all the ties on the rooftop before tying the bowtie.

/just wanted to say clip on controversy
 
2013-03-31 12:28:35 PM

Crackers Are a Family Food: Great episode, though I couldn't watch that woman and not see Judi Dench.  I also need to rename my wifi network.


As a techie, the first thing I thought of when I saw the intro was "Can you even do that with UTF8 and SSIDs?"
 
2013-03-31 12:37:50 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: any reasonable person who watched Baskervilles would, too


"The Hound" was farking terrible, but it's not one of the better Holmes stories to begin with (despite its popularity, which I credit to the memorable 1930s film since Rathbone defined Holmes until Jeremy Brett took a turn).

Of six stories, the new Sherlock has had 4 good ones and two stinkers. That's not a bad track record.

blue_2501: "Can you even do that with UTF8 and SSIDs?"


No, since those aren't in any standard character set. But an SSID can be any 32bytes you like.
 
2013-03-31 12:53:50 PM
Children of Earth is on right now and I forgot how fantastic and terribly sad the penultimate episode is. It's a good thing that Torchwood went out on top with a brilliant miniseries.

/Cpt Jack come back for 50th special?
 
2013-03-31 01:03:18 PM

TheManofPA: Children of Earth is on right now and I forgot how fantastic and terribly sad the penultimate episode is. It's a good thing that Torchwood went out on top with a brilliant miniseries.

/Cpt Jack come back for 50th special?


I'm assuming you're ignoring the Series of Torchwood That Doesn't Exist?

/I think he said he isn't.  http://tennantnews.blogspot.com/2013/03/no-captain-jack-for-doctor-wh o -50th.html
 
2013-03-31 01:14:52 PM

t3knomanser: whizbangthedirtfarmer: any reasonable person who watched Baskervilles would, too

"The Hound" was farking terrible, but it's not one of the better Holmes stories to begin with (despite its popularity, which I credit to the memorable 1930s film since Rathbone defined Holmes until Jeremy Brett took a turn).

Of six stories, the new Sherlock has had 4 good ones and two stinkers. That's not a bad track record.

blue_2501: "Can you even do that with UTF8 and SSIDs?"

No, since those aren't in any standard character set. But an SSID can be any 32bytes you like.



I am hard pressed to think of any completely good episodes outside of the very first one and maybe the third.  The only thing that saves the episodes is Martin Freeman.  This second series was shiatacular.

Scandal in Belgravia: Oh, thank goodness that the code was something completely farking stupid.  And that Sherlock can infiltrate a terrorist cell in the matter of a week.
Hound of the Baskervilles: When your case-breaking clue is a t-shirt that is apparently a gift from the CIA to its secret program participants, the "fear gas" part becomes almost believable.
The Reichenbach Fall:  I will say it again: if they reveal Sherlock took some sort of drug that made him bouncy, people will hear my screams across the East Coast.  The sad thing is that the show is so shiattily written that a bouncy-fying drug is a possibility.

Like Doctor Who, Moffat has gone way too cute, and instead relies on pretty visuals to cover his lack of scripting up.  He is a good writer, so let's let him do that, shall we?  And let someone else do creative control?  I recently read in SFX that one of the new Who episodes is "Journey to the Center of the TARDIS," and it was a Moffat half-baked "movie poster" idea again.
 
2013-03-31 01:17:06 PM
This also goes back to my theory that sci-fi and fantasy fans are gluttons for punishment.  We usually discuss shows by their quality, and its often something like: "yeah it was a GREAT series!  Well, season 1 and season 5 sucked, but the other two rocked!" or "season three had five or six really great episodes (out of 20) ... what a great show!"

\first one was from a thread on Babylon 5
\\second one was from a review of ST:TNG series 2
 
2013-03-31 01:18:07 PM

LavenderWolf: Darth_Lukecash: cptjeff: RevMercutio: Jensaarai: My lulzy nonserious prediction: Clara is River post-library. (Hey, we're in a big evil computer downloading and uploading souls kick.) She goes through a bastard version of regeneration every time she dies, where she keeps her form, but gets dumped in a random time period and loses most of her experience points.

River gave up her re-gen energy to save the Doctor after she poisoned him.

There are ways around that. Say, when the library saved her, it somehow restored things. Or if something dumps a lot of time energy into the library computer to get it to recreate her body... You know, somehow.

Let's just say that I don't think River is out for the count.m

No, she's done. It's the whole point of her character. The doctor and Rivers relationship is in reverse.

Exactly. If ever the Doctor sees her again, she won't remember him at all, and will regard him as a stranger.


That's already happened. It was the transition from Mels to River. As someone else posted, it's not strictly in reverse.
 
2013-03-31 01:20:09 PM

dennysgod: One interesting note in regards to the mysterious "lady in the shop" that gave Clara the TARDIS number is that in the BBC shop channel where you can buy DVD's and stuff for the description of Season 1 with Eccleston it refers to the Doctors new companion as "His new assistant is Rose (Billie Piper), a shop-girl from the present day".


Sally Sparrow (from Blink) works in a used DVD & Bookstore.
 
2013-03-31 01:44:27 PM

sirbissel: TheManofPA: Children of Earth is on right now and I forgot how fantastic and terribly sad the penultimate episode is. It's a good thing that Torchwood went out on top with a brilliant miniseries.

/Cpt Jack come back for 50th special?

I'm assuming you're ignoring the Series of Torchwood That Doesn't Exist?

/I think he said he isn't.  http://tennantnews.blogspot.com/2013/03/no-captain-jack-for-doctor-wh o -50th.html


::Stabs sirbissel::

Children of Earth was a great end to the Torchwood series if bittersweet

Sad he won't be in it.
 
2013-03-31 01:47:30 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: t3knomanser: whizbangthedirtfarmer: any reasonable person who watched Baskervilles would, too

"The Hound" was farking terrible, but it's not one of the better Holmes stories to begin with (despite its popularity, which I credit to the memorable 1930s film since Rathbone defined Holmes until Jeremy Brett took a turn).

Of six stories, the new Sherlock has had 4 good ones and two stinkers. That's not a bad track record.

blue_2501: "Can you even do that with UTF8 and SSIDs?"

No, since those aren't in any standard character set. But an SSID can be any 32bytes you like.


I am hard pressed to think of any completely good episodes outside of the very first one and maybe the third.  The only thing that saves the episodes is Martin Freeman.  This second series was shiatacular.

Scandal in Belgravia: Oh, thank goodness that the code was something completely farking stupid.  And that Sherlock can infiltrate a terrorist cell in the matter of a week.
Hound of the Baskervilles: When your case-breaking clue is a t-shirt that is apparently a gift from the CIA to its secret program participants, the "fear gas" part becomes almost believable.
The Reichenbach Fall:  I will say it again: if they reveal Sherlock took some sort of drug that made him bouncy, people will hear my screams across the East Coast.  The sad thing is that the show is so shiattily written that a bouncy-fying drug is a possibility.

Like Doctor Who, Moffat has gone way too cute, and instead relies on pretty visuals to cover his lack of scripting up.  He is a good writer, so let's let him do that, shall we?  And let someone else do creative control?  I recently read in SFX that one of the new Who episodes is "Journey to the Center of the TARDIS," and it was a Moffat half-baked "movie poster" idea again.


Sounds like you should just stop watching then if you are going to get all butthurt over every little thing.

Also, I believe a lot of fans have been asking for a TARDIS only story because we never get to see the inside of the TARDIS. We only get to hear about how many weird things are inside.
 
2013-03-31 02:14:25 PM

ActionJoe: whizbangthedirtfarmer: t3knomanser: whizbangthedirtfarmer: any reasonable person who watched Baskervilles would, too

"The Hound" was farking terrible, but it's not one of the better Holmes stories to begin with (despite its popularity, which I credit to the memorable 1930s film since Rathbone defined Holmes until Jeremy Brett took a turn).

Of six stories, the new Sherlock has had 4 good ones and two stinkers. That's not a bad track record.

blue_2501: "Can you even do that with UTF8 and SSIDs?"

No, since those aren't in any standard character set. But an SSID can be any 32bytes you like.


I am hard pressed to think of any completely good episodes outside of the very first one and maybe the third.  The only thing that saves the episodes is Martin Freeman.  This second series was shiatacular.

Scandal in Belgravia: Oh, thank goodness that the code was something completely farking stupid.  And that Sherlock can infiltrate a terrorist cell in the matter of a week.
Hound of the Baskervilles: When your case-breaking clue is a t-shirt that is apparently a gift from the CIA to its secret program participants, the "fear gas" part becomes almost believable.
The Reichenbach Fall:  I will say it again: if they reveal Sherlock took some sort of drug that made him bouncy, people will hear my screams across the East Coast.  The sad thing is that the show is so shiattily written that a bouncy-fying drug is a possibility.

Like Doctor Who, Moffat has gone way too cute, and instead relies on pretty visuals to cover his lack of scripting up.  He is a good writer, so let's let him do that, shall we?  And let someone else do creative control?  I recently read in SFX that one of the new Who episodes is "Journey to the Center of the TARDIS," and it was a Moffat half-baked "movie poster" idea again.

Sounds like you should just stop watching then if you are going to get all butthurt over every little thing.

Also, I believe a lot of fans have been asking for a TARDIS only story because ...


1) "every little thing" is a quibble with the music of the episode, or a one-off line.  "Every little thing" is NOT major and incredibly stupid plot points.  Seriously, when you watched Baskervilles, did you honestly believe that the CIA handed out t-shirts to the people who volunteered for experiments, and that the main person would be wearing said t-shirt (which was several years old) when he was running through the woods?  It was completely ludicrous and shattered an already weak episode.  The old "you shouldn't watch it" line doesn't make the show any less stupid.  My wife adored the first season (it was passable), but even with that, we sat through the second season completely flummoxed: how could anyone like a show here the showrunner seems to have a complete contempt for the fans?

2) I have no problem with the TARDIS.  I have a problem with the two things: 1) the "movie poster" concept.  Moffat apparently believes that people who watch Who are too dim too keep up with "big" story arcs, or that it is simply too hard to put one together and maintain some coherence.  Each season of Smith's run has been clogged up with ridiculous plot twists and nonsensical dilemmas.  Moffat's solution?  fark all that, then, let's just make everything really pretty and not worry about things like plot.  His solution is to base the series on a series of "movie posters" with big moments that ... lead to nothing.  In the same interview I mentioned above, some of the sequences in the most recent episode were written as a direct response/homage to Skyfall.  That's absolutely stupid.  2) Writing an episode for the fans is great, but there are numerous episodes that take place almost entirely within the TARDIS or that feature the TARDIS interior.   The concept of writing an episode for the fans also runs the risk of creating a "revelation" that was already well known anyway.  Take a look at "The Doctor's Wife:" the revelation was that the TARDIS has been sentient and in control the entire time.  Well, no shiat, and I was perplexed by those who thought this was a startling or new take on the show.  It's as if the previous 49 years never happened.  It was overall a decent episode, but let's not say it was revolutionary.
 
2013-03-31 02:24:44 PM
This is probably an incredibly stupid question, but is there anyone else out there who remembers  Dark Season?
In the event thatit rings a bell with anyone, let me help jog your memory a bit.
 
2013-03-31 02:26:04 PM

100 Watt Walrus: 1) They don't meet in reverse, they meet out of order, and they've figured out over time that their meetings have mostly been in the opposite order. A few super-geeks have diagrammed the order in which they meet. Each diagram has some errors (OK, yes, I too am a super-geek), not all of them follow through to River's most recent appearance, and not all of them are very well laid out, but if you can handle the headache here they are:

http://i.imgur.com/jjxG4DT.jpg
http://willbrooks.deviantart.com/art/River-Song-Timeline-Series-4-7a- 2 88713635
http://i.imgur.com/PP1OWHe.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/te0xYFW.jpg


Or you could just watch all of her appearances in chronological order...

http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/8238472/Doctor_Who_Fan_Edit_-_The_Riv er _Song_Chronology
 
2013-03-31 02:30:59 PM
I look at the headline again and realize that <b>subby</b> hasn't actually seen JLC's boobs.

So   in the start of the show the asian boy in the work room calls the uploaded people "spring heads".
Mindspring reference.  Dead cold fact.
 
2013-03-31 02:31:52 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: ActionJoe: whizbangthedirtfarmer: t3knomanser: whizbangthedirtfarmer: any reasonable person who watched Baskervilles would, too

"The Hound" was farking terrible, but it's not one of the better Holmes stories to begin with (despite its popularity, which I credit to the memorable 1930s film since Rathbone defined Holmes until Jeremy Brett took a turn).

Of six stories, the new Sherlock has had 4 good ones and two stinkers. That's not a bad track record.

blue_2501: "Can you even do that with UTF8 and SSIDs?"

No, since those aren't in any standard character set. But an SSID can be any 32bytes you like.


I am hard pressed to think of any completely good episodes outside of the very first one and maybe the third.  The only thing that saves the episodes is Martin Freeman.  This second series was shiatacular.

Scandal in Belgravia: Oh, thank goodness that the code was something completely farking stupid.  And that Sherlock can infiltrate a terrorist cell in the matter of a week.
Hound of the Baskervilles: When your case-breaking clue is a t-shirt that is apparently a gift from the CIA to its secret program participants, the "fear gas" part becomes almost believable.
The Reichenbach Fall:  I will say it again: if they reveal Sherlock took some sort of drug that made him bouncy, people will hear my screams across the East Coast.  The sad thing is that the show is so shiattily written that a bouncy-fying drug is a possibility.

Like Doctor Who, Moffat has gone way too cute, and instead relies on pretty visuals to cover his lack of scripting up.  He is a good writer, so let's let him do that, shall we?  And let someone else do creative control?  I recently read in SFX that one of the new Who episodes is "Journey to the Center of the TARDIS," and it was a Moffat half-baked "movie poster" idea again.

Sounds like you should just stop watching then if you are going to get all butthurt over every little thing.

Also, I believe a lot of fans have been asking for a TARDIS only st ...


You should stop watching because you actually believe the writer has contempt for his fans. If you really believe that, then you have a problem and should stop watching because nothing will ever change your mind.
 
2013-03-31 02:32:43 PM

cptjeff: Huh, the Doctor's a pretty good painter


he had a lot of time to do it right...
 
2013-03-31 02:45:45 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: 2) I have no problem with the TARDIS.  I have a problem with the two things: 1) the "movie poster" concept.  Moffat apparently believes that people who watch Who are too dim too keep up with "big" story arcs, or that it is simply too hard to put one together and maintain some coherence.


Are we even watching the same show? There are some major story arcs in season 7 that were all running through the "movie poster" episodes.
1. Knowledge of the Doctor being erased by Oswin.
2. The Ponds growing older and the Doctor finally losing them, and then retreating due to the grief.
3. The mystery of Clara Oswald pulling the Doctor out of his self-imposed exile.
4. The Great Intelligence growing into the main villain of the season.

There's way more going on in the background than was even happening during you typical RTD season where he just name checked the big bad of the season during the episodes and then waited until the last 2-3 episodes of the season to really do anything with the villain.

Also, Season 5 had a very nicely done story arc that tied up all the various plot threads together nicely (the crack, the Pandorica, Amy's wedding, River, the "continuity error" with the jacket) and wove them through the stand alone episodes really well. Had it been an RTD season, you'd simply have had the crack make a cameo each episode then the last episode would have Deus Ex'd it away. Season six wasn't nearly as good, but it did have its moments.

I've been a fan since the 80s, and I personally love what Moffatt has been doing with the show. The writing and production values have been really good (for example, the airplane scene was a nice take on the typical companion TARDIS intro scene), and the show has been more popular than ever, especially here in the US. RTD did a great job bringing the show back, but I personally feel that Moffatt-era Who is simply a more solid and entertaining show overall.
 
2013-03-31 02:47:46 PM

prjindigo: I look at the headline again and realize that <b>subby</b> hasn't actually seen JLC's boobs.

So   in the start of the show the asian boy in the work room calls the uploaded people "spring heads".
Mindspring reference.  Dead cold fact.


Yeah, fact. Except for the part where he calls them "spoon heads" instead of "spring heads" yeah.

Also, JLC's boobs are quite nice. NSFW
 
2013-03-31 02:53:51 PM

Mad_Radhu: I've been a fan since the 80s, and I personally love what Moffatt has been doing with the show. The writing and production values have been really good (for example, the airplane scene was a nice take on the typical companion TARDIS intro scene), and the show has been more popular than ever, especially here in the US. RTD did a great job bringing the show back, but I personally feel that Moffatt-era Who is simply a more solid and entertaining show overall.


Well said. And seconded.
 
2013-03-31 03:12:48 PM

Mad_Radhu: whizbangthedirtfarmer: 2) I have no problem with the TARDIS.  I have a problem with the two things: 1) the "movie poster" concept.  Moffat apparently believes that people who watch Who are too dim too keep up with "big" story arcs, or that it is simply too hard to put one together and maintain some coherence.

Are we even watching the same show? There are some major story arcs in season 7 that were all running through the "movie poster" episodes.
1. Knowledge of the Doctor being erased by Oswin.
2. The Ponds growing older and the Doctor finally losing them, and then retreating due to the grief.
3. The mystery of Clara Oswald pulling the Doctor out of his self-imposed exile.
4. The Great Intelligence growing into the main villain of the season.

There's way more going on in the background than was even happening during you typical RTD season where he just name checked the big bad of the season during the episodes and then waited until the last 2-3 episodes of the season to really do anything with the villain.

Also, Season 5 had a very nicely done story arc that tied up all the various plot threads together nicely (the crack, the Pandorica, Amy's wedding, River, the "continuity error" with the jacket) and wove them through the stand alone episodes really well. Had it been an RTD season, you'd simply have had the crack make a cameo each episode then the last episode would have Deus Ex'd it away. Season six wasn't nearly as good, but it did have its moments.

I've been a fan since the 80s, and I personally love what Moffatt has been doing with the show. The writing and production values have been really good (for example, the airplane scene was a nice take on the typical companion TARDIS intro scene), and the show has been more popular than ever, especially here in the US. RTD did a great job bringing the show back, but I personally feel that Moffatt-era Who is simply a more solid and entertaining show overall.


If the previous seasons are any indication, however, we will receive a big Deus Ex at the end, just as you claim RTD did.  The "crack" was healed, and everything was reset.  The Ponds' resolution was ridiculous and forced (he can't land the TARDIS there...so what?).  Sure, Moffat has had some good moments as a showrunner, but let's not pretend he's doing something radically different than RTD.  The crack, as you said, made a cameo appearance in many episodes, and was indeed deus ex'ed away.  I see little different other than that it was more stylish.  Unfortunately, in this season, The Great Intelligence is ridiculous-looking (seriously, a snowglobe?) and has no aura of threat whatsoever.  Will that change?  Maybe.  But so long as Moffat is concerned most of all with visuals (he said as much in an interview about "The Asylum of the Daleks"-- he just wanted to see a lot of Daleks in one place) instead of plotting, then we aren't going to get anything remotely satisfying.

Maybe this season, Moffat will pull a nugget out of his ass.  So far, though, he appears to be hammering away at visuals and the same "greatest girl in the universe" theme that has been repeated every year since 2005.
 
2013-03-31 03:15:23 PM

ActionJoe: whizbangthedirtfarmer: ActionJoe: whizbangthedirtfarmer: t3knomanser: whizbangthedirtfarmer: any reasonable person who watched Baskervilles would, too

"The Hound" was farking terrible, but it's not one of the better Holmes stories to begin with (despite its popularity, which I credit to the memorable 1930s film since Rathbone defined Holmes until Jeremy Brett took a turn).

Of six stories, the new Sherlock has had 4 good ones and two stinkers. That's not a bad track record.

blue_2501: "Can you even do that with UTF8 and SSIDs?"

No, since those aren't in any standard character set. But an SSID can be any 32bytes you like.


I am hard pressed to think of any completely good episodes outside of the very first one and maybe the third.  The only thing that saves the episodes is Martin Freeman.  This second series was shiatacular.

Scandal in Belgravia: Oh, thank goodness that the code was something completely farking stupid.  And that Sherlock can infiltrate a terrorist cell in the matter of a week.
Hound of the Baskervilles: When your case-breaking clue is a t-shirt that is apparently a gift from the CIA to its secret program participants, the "fear gas" part becomes almost believable.
The Reichenbach Fall:  I will say it again: if they reveal Sherlock took some sort of drug that made him bouncy, people will hear my screams across the East Coast.  The sad thing is that the show is so shiattily written that a bouncy-fying drug is a possibility.

Like Doctor Who, Moffat has gone way too cute, and instead relies on pretty visuals to cover his lack of scripting up.  He is a good writer, so let's let him do that, shall we?  And let someone else do creative control?  I recently read in SFX that one of the new Who episodes is "Journey to the Center of the TARDIS," and it was a Moffat half-baked "movie poster" idea again.

Sounds like you should just stop watching then if you are going to get all butthurt over every little thing.

Also, I believe a lot of fans have been aski ...


Call me a completionist.  I don't think the writers have contempt for the fans (okay, some of them do), but I think the showrunner (Moffat) does place a higher emphasis on pretty images, and not on plot.  Anyone who critically watches Sherlock (or Jekyll, in all of its abysmal-ness) cannot deny that.  What has happened with Sherlock is that you have a water-cooler show, and I'm afraid that Doctor Who is slowly turning into a show where we expect pretty images and wonderful action sequences, and not a whole lot else.  This completely flies in the face of the previous decades of the show's history.
 
2013-03-31 04:15:19 PM
god I hate all the Moffat biatching, I enjoy what he's doing with Dr. Who AND Sherlock.   I swear you people come in here just shiat all over stuff that people like.

What I don't get is when people hate Moffat but loved RTD with gems like Martha's infatuation, Daleks in Manhattan, and The Sound of Drums, that was some utterly shiatastic Who.


Still feel that Pond is 3rd best companion, 2nd is Donna, and Oswin is my number 1 at the moment.
 
2013-03-31 04:16:57 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Zarquon's Flat Tire: dennysgod: One interesting note in regards to the mysterious "lady in the shop" that gave Clara the TARDIS number is that in the BBC shop channel where you can buy DVD's and stuff for the description of Season 1 with Eccleston it refers to the Doctors new companion as "His new assistant is Rose (Billie Piper), a shop-girl from the present day".

Except the Doctor blew up her shop in 2005.

Folks, Moffat's in charge.  Don't look for answers or try to theorize.  Whatever you do, you will end up sorely disapointed when it comes to the end and he has placed a premium on plucking the ol' heart strings rather than come up with something that makes any sense.  I still watch the show, but with little of the same sense of excitement or interest I have since its reboot.  They need to switch showrunners, and fast.

\yes, I hate Sherlock, too
\\any reasonable person who watched Baskervilles would, too


1) It's fun to theorize, but you're right about the fact that making sense is low on Moffat's list or priorities, which is unfortunate. Besides, "shop-girl" means "clerk." To think that Rose is the person being referenced based solely on the fact that she was once referred to as a "shop girl" is pants-on-head retarded.

2) Sherlock is very enjoyable, but no where near as good as its praise suggests. Cumberbuttons is great in the role, but the plots are full of holes.

3) To be fair, Doyle's original "Baskervilles" is pretty problematic itself.
 
2013-03-31 04:33:34 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Mad_Radhu: whizbangthedirtfarmer: 2) I have no problem with the TARDIS.  I have a problem with the two things: 1) the "movie poster" concept.  Moffat apparently believes that people who watch Who are too dim too keep up with "big" story arcs, or that it is simply too hard to put one together and maintain some coherence.

Are we even watching the same show? There are some major story arcs in season 7 that were all running through the "movie poster" episodes.
1. Knowledge of the Doctor being erased by Oswin.
2. The Ponds growing older and the Doctor finally losing them, and then retreating due to the grief.
3. The mystery of Clara Oswald pulling the Doctor out of his self-imposed exile.
4. The Great Intelligence growing into the main villain of the season.

There's way more going on in the background than was even happening during you typical RTD season where he just name checked the big bad of the season during the episodes and then waited until the last 2-3 episodes of the season to really do anything with the villain.

Also, Season 5 had a very nicely done story arc that tied up all the various plot threads together nicely (the crack, the Pandorica, Amy's wedding, River, the "continuity error" with the jacket) and wove them through the stand alone episodes really well. Had it been an RTD season, you'd simply have had the crack make a cameo each episode then the last episode would have Deus Ex'd it away. Season six wasn't nearly as good, but it did have its moments.

I've been a fan since the 80s, and I personally love what Moffatt has been doing with the show. The writing and production values have been really good (for example, the airplane scene was a nice take on the typical companion TARDIS intro scene), and the show has been more popular than ever, especially here in the US. RTD did a great job bringing the show back, but I personally feel that Moffatt-era Who is simply a more solid and entertaining show overall.

If the previous seasons are any indication, ho ...


Careful, now. People will soon start proudly proclaiming how they have you on ignore because you're having an opinion that isn't "SQUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE BEST EVAR!". You've already been told to quit watching, which is the other standard reply.


Anyway, decent episode. Smith and Coleman have a decent chemistry. And, Smith seems more... Doctor-like with this new companion.

/too bad the original Great Intelligence serials are missing. It would be nice to see how he got his start as a fairly okay intelligence.
 
2013-03-31 04:39:04 PM

Serial: 100 Watt Walrus: 1) They don't meet in reverse, they meet out of order, and they've figured out over time that their meetings have mostly been in the opposite order. A few super-geeks have diagrammed the order in which they meet. Each diagram has some errors (OK, yes, I too am a super-geek), not all of them follow through to River's most recent appearance, and not all of them are very well laid out, but if you can handle the headache here they are:

http://i.imgur.com/jjxG4DT.jpg
http://willbrooks.deviantart.com/art/River-Song-Timeline-Series-4-7a- 2 88713635
http://i.imgur.com/PP1OWHe.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/te0xYFW.jpg

Or you could just watch all of her appearances in chronological order...

http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/8238472/Doctor_Who_Fan_Edit_-_The_Riv er _Song_Chronology


You are a beautiful human being. I didn't even know that existed. Downloading now.
 
2013-03-31 04:44:13 PM

100 Watt Walrus: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Zarquon's Flat Tire: dennysgod: One interesting note in regards to the mysterious "lady in the shop" that gave Clara the TARDIS number is that in the BBC shop channel where you can buy DVD's and stuff for the description of Season 1 with Eccleston it refers to the Doctors new companion as "His new assistant is Rose (Billie Piper), a shop-girl from the present day".

Except the Doctor blew up her shop in 2005.

Folks, Moffat's in charge.  Don't look for answers or try to theorize.  Whatever you do, you will end up sorely disapointed when it comes to the end and he has placed a premium on plucking the ol' heart strings rather than come up with something that makes any sense.  I still watch the show, but with little of the same sense of excitement or interest I have since its reboot.  They need to switch showrunners, and fast.

\yes, I hate Sherlock, too
\\any reasonable person who watched Baskervilles would, too

1) It's fun to theorize, but you're right about the fact that making sense is low on Moffat's list or priorities, which is unfortunate. Besides, "shop-girl" means "clerk." To think that Rose is the person being referenced based solely on the fact that she was once referred to as a "shop girl" is pants-on-head retarded.

2) Sherlock is very enjoyable, but no where near as good as its praise suggests. Cumberbuttons is great in the role, but the plots are full of holes.

3) To be fair, Doyle's original "Baskervilles" is pretty problematic itself.


I can deal with some of the holes; after all, I managed to somewhat be okay with the first season.  During the second season, there were actually moments where I said "you've got to be farking kidding me."  They weren't plot holes--they were just sloppy pieces of a general script outline fused together by people talking about inane things.  To say that there was a plot hole would require the bare minimum of a plot.  Maybe season three will be better, but I have serious doubts.
 
2013-03-31 04:53:23 PM
whizbangthedirtfarmer:
...This completely flies in the face of the previous decades of the show's history.

Baskerville was written by Gatiss.

Also, during the previous decades of the show's history they had neither time nor resources to go for pretty images.  But they wanted to, and you can tell this because they occasionally have a crack at providing a bit of spectacle.  To suggest that Doctor Who's producers and directors didn't want to create striking visuals because of some refined aesthetic sensibility or commitment to quality storytelling is to view the classic series through a haze of nostalgia, to ignore it's many flaws and to forget that television is a primarily visual medium.  It is definitely allowed to be about pretty pictures.
 
2013-03-31 04:56:52 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: I can deal with some of the holes; after all, I managed to somewhat be okay with the first season.  During the second season, there were actually moments where I said "you've got to be farking kidding me."  They weren't plot holes--they were just sloppy pieces of a general script outline fused together by people talking about inane things.  To say that there was a plot hole would require the bare minimum of a plot.  Maybe season three will be better, but I have serious doubts.


No argument from me on that. When a Sherlock Holmes story insults your intelligence, it's being told badly, and that happened several times in series two.

(How the hell did we turn a "Doctor Who" thread - about an episode less than 24 hours old no less - into a "Sherlock" thread?!? Especially since "Sherlock" hasn't aired in over a year! There's something seriously wrong with us.)

Back on topic: I hope the Spoonheads aren't this series' Flesh dopplegangers. The new "Doctor Who" has gotten bad enough at repeating itself already (this episode's similarities to "The Idiot Box" being a prime example).
 
2013-03-31 05:02:57 PM

Occupier: whizbangthedirtfarmer:
...This completely flies in the face of the previous decades of the show's history.

Baskerville was written by Gatiss.

Also, during the previous decades of the show's history they had neither time nor resources to go for pretty images.  But they wanted to, and you can tell this because they occasionally have a crack at providing a bit of spectacle.  To suggest that Doctor Who's producers and directors didn't want to create striking visuals because of some refined aesthetic sensibility or commitment to quality storytelling is to view the classic series through a haze of nostalgia, to ignore it's many flaws and to forget that television is a primarily visual medium.  It is definitely allowed to be about pretty pictures.


...but not at the sake of decent writing.  Some of the best Who episodes combined both, even with the limitations of the time period (Talons of Wen Chiang, etc.).  I am hard pressed to think of any classic Who, though, that purposely focused on pretty images at the expense of plot.  Sure, there were some shiatty scripts out there, but they were shiatty because they were poorly written, or had bad characters, or were trimmed.  They weren't shiatty because the showrunner decided to make every episode based off of a movie poster and go for spectacle instead of storytelling.

As far as Gatiss goes, he is one of the lesser writers associated with the show, and produced two stinkers, one of which he was the main character ("The Lazarus Experiment").  "The Wedding of River Song" was not quite as bad, but still focused on visuals over plot--the resolution to the season long arc was at once pointless (let's erase everything and start over!) and grating (Doctor Who?  Doctor Who?  Doctor Who?).  It's no surprise that he wrote the worst two hours of Sherlock as well.
 
2013-03-31 05:03:09 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: prjindigo: I look at the headline again and realize that <b>subby</b> hasn't actually seen JLC's boobs.

So   in the start of the show the asian boy in the work room calls the uploaded people "spring heads".
Mindspring reference.  Dead cold fact.

Yeah, fact. Except for the part where he calls them "spoon heads" instead of "spring heads" yeah.

Also, JLC's boobs are quite nice. NSFW


Spoonheads?

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-03-31 05:07:41 PM

ElectricPeterTork: Dingleberry Dickwad: prjindigo: I look at the headline again and realize that <b>subby</b> hasn't actually seen JLC's boobs.

So   in the start of the show the asian boy in the work room calls the uploaded people "spring heads".
Mindspring reference.  Dead cold fact.

Yeah, fact. Except for the part where he calls them "spoon heads" instead of "spring heads" yeah.

Also, JLC's boobs are quite nice. NSFW

Spoonheads?

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 400x393]


It's funny because that was my exact thought at first when he said that.
 
2013-03-31 05:34:19 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Occupier: whizbangthedirtfarmer:
...This completely flies in the face of the previous decades of the show's history.

Baskerville was written by Gatiss.

Also, during the previous decades of the show's history they had neither time nor resources to go for pretty images.  But they wanted to, and you can tell this because they occasionally have a crack at providing a bit of spectacle.  To suggest that Doctor Who's producers and directors didn't want to create striking visuals because of some refined aesthetic sensibility or commitment to quality storytelling is to view the classic series through a haze of nostalgia, to ignore it's many flaws and to forget that television is a primarily visual medium.  It is definitely allowed to be about pretty pictures.

...but not at the sake of decent writing.  Some of the best Who episodes combined both, even with the limitations of the time period (Talons of Wen Chiang, etc.).  I am hard pressed to think of any classic Who, though, that purposely focused on pretty images at the expense of plot.  Sure, there were some shiatty scripts out there, but they were shiatty because they were poorly written, or had bad characters, or were trimmed.  They weren't shiatty because the showrunner decided to make every episode based off of a movie poster and go for spectacle instead of storytelling.

As far as Gatiss goes, he is one of the lesser writers associated with the show, and produced two stinkers, one of which he was the main character ("The Lazarus Experiment").  "The Wedding of River Song" was not quite as bad, but still focused on visuals over plot--the resolution to the season long arc was at once pointless (let's erase everything and start over!) and grating (Doctor Who?  Doctor Who?  Doctor Who?).  It's no surprise that he wrote the worst two hours of Sherlock as well.


The Lazarus Experiment was written by Stephen Greenhorn.

The Wedding of River Song was Moffat.  For someone who claims to care about the writing, you're paying very little attention to the actual writer.

The Classic series has quite a few style over substance moments.  Warrior's Gate is a New Romantic pop video.  Carnival of Monsters takes a very limp swing at satirizing television in general but is mostly about pictures.  Episodes 4 to 8 of The Wargames are entirely superfluous.  I could go on.

It's not like I love and adore everything that's happened since 2005, but it is better than a good 75% of what's on TV.  Since you're still watching it despite your dislike, what is it you watch for?
 
2013-03-31 05:46:31 PM

Occupier: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Occupier: whizbangthedirtfarmer:
...This completely flies in the face of the previous decades of the show's history.

Baskerville was written by Gatiss.

Also, during the previous decades of the show's history they had neither time nor resources to go for pretty images.  But they wanted to, and you can tell this because they occasionally have a crack at providing a bit of spectacle.  To suggest that Doctor Who's producers and directors didn't want to create striking visuals because of some refined aesthetic sensibility or commitment to quality storytelling is to view the classic series through a haze of nostalgia, to ignore it's many flaws and to forget that television is a primarily visual medium.  It is definitely allowed to be about pretty pictures.

...but not at the sake of decent writing.  Some of the best Who episodes combined both, even with the limitations of the time period (Talons of Wen Chiang, etc.).  I am hard pressed to think of any classic Who, though, that purposely focused on pretty images at the expense of plot.  Sure, there were some shiatty scripts out there, but they were shiatty because they were poorly written, or had bad characters, or were trimmed.  They weren't shiatty because the showrunner decided to make every episode based off of a movie poster and go for spectacle instead of storytelling.

As far as Gatiss goes, he is one of the lesser writers associated with the show, and produced two stinkers, one of which he was the main character ("The Lazarus Experiment").  "The Wedding of River Song" was not quite as bad, but still focused on visuals over plot--the resolution to the season long arc was at once pointless (let's erase everything and start over!) and grating (Doctor Who?  Doctor Who?  Doctor Who?).  It's no surprise that he wrote the worst two hours of Sherlock as well.

The Lazarus Experiment was written by Stephen Greenhorn.

The Wedding of River Song was Moffat.  For someone who claims to care about the wr ...


My mistake.  Gatiss did have some co-writing on both of those eps, but not the official credits.  Even so, his work on both of the Sherlocks was godawful, and my point still stands about classic Who and visuals.  Would they have loved better SFX, or to have the Doctor doing a Skyfall thing?  Sure.  But I don't think even JNT would have stooped so far as to completely ignore the story.

I agree that Doctor Who is currently better than 75% of what is on TV right now.  Unfortunately, about 85% of Doctor Who is better than what I'm currently seeing. In response to the "stop watching" shiat, all I have to say is that I do enjoy watching it, but I tend to have a critical and realistic sense of the show.  It's better than most of what is on TV, but that's just not saying much: Breaking Bad, maybe Game of Thrones, and ... well, after that I draw blanks.  So, I will watch Doctor Who, but don't expect me to worship everything that occurs or to gloss over some incredibly shiatty writing/plot decisions.
 
2013-03-31 06:17:06 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Unfortunately, about 85% of Doctor Who is better than what I'm currently seeing.


I really don't think that's true. Even if we simply limit ourselves to the  plotting of the episodes, Classic Who suffers from some serious flaws in that regard. The largest one is the pacing of the story. In any given four episode serial, there is at least one episode's worth of action that's completely and utterly superfluous. There's a vast raft of episodes which are galloping nonsense, or which depend on painful tropes, like, "Oh, I have an exact duplicate and nobody can tell us apart!"

And this isn't just one era or another- this is endemic to the series. No Doctor escaped it. No Doctor ever will.

All that said, I do find myself wishing they'd go back to the old serial format. NuWho, especially under Moffat, tries to tell a four act story, and often ends up having to shortchange important plot developments in one or more of the acts. It was most painful and obvious in "Victory of the Daleks", which  could have been a good episode (and how sad is it that it was the best Dalek episode since "Dalek"?), but had to rush over plot points until it was so busy waving its hands that it just hoped the Spitfires-in-Space would do it for you.
 
2013-03-31 06:32:52 PM

TheManofPA: On the clip on controversy, I like to think it is your standard DW continuity error/that was his emergency protocol bowtie.

Mind you,all the bow ties he wears are "too perfect" that they are probably clip-ons, BUT in the first Matt Smith episode, he does debate between all the ties on the rooftop before tying the bowtie.

/just wanted to say clip on controversy


You can't get strangled with a clip on.

Also watching some earlier eps today (Notably "Pyramids of Mars") the Doctor has always been affectionate towards his female companions in the same way 10 and Rose were, but he was very English about it, stiff upper llip and all. The specific scene is where Sara comes out in on of Vicki's dresses that she happened to find in a trunk. He is very sentimental deep down.
 
2013-03-31 08:29:25 PM
Jensaarai:
They showed what I assumed was a webisode or something about the Doctor on a swingset, talking with some young girl about how they lose things. (Him obviously referencing Oswin.) The kid recommends that he go somewhere quiet to think or something, which seems to be what leads to the whole monk thing.

Umm...the girl on the swing *is* Oswin.
 
2013-03-31 08:54:05 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: prjindigo: I look at the headline again and realize that <b>subby</b> hasn't actually seen JLC's boobs.

So   in the start of the show the asian boy in the work room calls the uploaded people "spring heads".
Mindspring reference.  Dead cold fact.

Yeah, fact. Except for the part where he calls them "spoon heads" instead of "spring heads" yeah.

Also, JLC's boobs are quite nice. NSFW


applejack.ponychan.net
 
2013-03-31 09:16:42 PM

t3knomanser: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Unfortunately, about 85% of Doctor Who is better than what I'm currently seeing.

I really don't think that's true. Even if we simply limit ourselves to the  plotting of the episodes, Classic Who suffers from some serious flaws in that regard. The largest one is the pacing of the story. In any given four episode serial, there is at least one episode's worth of action that's completely and utterly superfluous. There's a vast raft of episodes which are galloping nonsense, or which depend on painful tropes, like, "Oh, I have an exact duplicate and nobody can tell us apart!"

And this isn't just one era or another- this is endemic to the series. No Doctor escaped it. No Doctor ever will.

All that said, I do find myself wishing they'd go back to the old serial format. NuWho, especially under Moffat, tries to tell a four act story, and often ends up having to shortchange important plot developments in one or more of the acts. It was most painful and obvious in "Victory of the Daleks", which  could have been a good episode (and how sad is it that it was the best Dalek episode since "Dalek"?), but had to rush over plot points until it was so busy waving its hands that it just hoped the Spitfires-in-Space would do it for you.


I would say that the whole "capture/recapture" thing was rampant during the early years, but petered out at the end of the Pertwee era.  After the first season of Tom Baker's run, and almost all the way through Peter Davison's run, there's a large swath of not only good Doctor episodes, but legendary ones.  It was at that time that the writers and the producers had finally understood how to present the stories, the length they should be, etc.  Some of Colin Baker's stories fit in this category as well, and there are very few episodes with filler in them.  Once it got to McCoy, however, then the BBC started cutting their orders, and many of the episodes were a jumbled mess.  Still, give me The Caves of Androzani any day over ... well, almost all of Matt Smith's run.
 
2013-03-31 09:23:36 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: t3knomanser: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Unfortunately, about 85% of Doctor Who is better than what I'm currently seeing.

I really don't think that's true. Even if we simply limit ourselves to the  plotting of the episodes, Classic Who suffers from some serious flaws in that regard. The largest one is the pacing of the story. In any given four episode serial, there is at least one episode's worth of action that's completely and utterly superfluous. There's a vast raft of episodes which are galloping nonsense, or which depend on painful tropes, like, "Oh, I have an exact duplicate and nobody can tell us apart!"

And this isn't just one era or another- this is endemic to the series. No Doctor escaped it. No Doctor ever will.

All that said, I do find myself wishing they'd go back to the old serial format. NuWho, especially under Moffat, tries to tell a four act story, and often ends up having to shortchange important plot developments in one or more of the acts. It was most painful and obvious in "Victory of the Daleks", which  could have been a good episode (and how sad is it that it was the best Dalek episode since "Dalek"?), but had to rush over plot points until it was so busy waving its hands that it just hoped the Spitfires-in-Space would do it for you.

I would say that the whole "capture/recapture" thing was rampant during the early years, but petered out at the end of the Pertwee era.  After the first season of Tom Baker's run, and almost all the way through Peter Davison's run, there's a large swath of not only good Doctor episodes, but legendary ones.  It was at that time that the writers and the producers had finally understood how to present the stories, the length they should be, etc.  Some of Colin Baker's stories fit in this category as well, and there are very few episodes with filler in them.  Once it got to McCoy, however, then the BBC started cutting their orders, and many of the episodes were a jumbled mess.  Still, give me The Caves of Androzani any ...


So much of the writing for Colin Baker was crap (never mind the clothes). When he was given good material he was fantastic and would've been a great Doctor. Just check out his audio adventures over at Big Finish.
 
2013-03-31 10:26:12 PM
I second the support for Colin Baker. He was entertaining, even when they did give him crappy stories. I'd love to see a Doctor with his bombastic personality again. But then, I'd also love to see a mysterious, oddball, dark Doctor like Two and Seven were.

Matt Smith brings a lot of those Doctors into his performance. He can be a bit bombastic-- In a polite way-- and he definitely brings the "ancient being playing a long game with the universe" aspect to it that Two and Seven were known for.

My favorite remains Seven. McCoy's Doctor and Aldred's Ace were a great mix of personalities and had some fairly fun (if not occasionally stupid) adventures. I wish they hadn't canceled the show during McCoy's run, because they were building up to some grand plan the Doctor had for Ace, and they never got to it.
 
2013-03-31 10:26:18 PM

RassilonsExWife: Mad_Radhu: I've been a fan since the 80s, and I personally love what Moffatt has been doing with the show. The writing and production values have been really good (for example, the airplane scene was a nice take on the typical companion TARDIS intro scene), and the show has been more popular than ever, especially here in the US. RTD did a great job bringing the show back, but I personally feel that Moffatt-era Who is simply a more solid and entertaining show overall.

Well said. And seconded.


Agreed. I read an interesting quote from Moffat about the origin of River Song's name. He and RTD were on the message boards at the time and noticed the fans abbreviating the episode titles. Aliens Of London became AOL. They decided to try to make ep titles that would spell naughty words. Moffat came up with At River Song's End to spell ARSE. They laughed and he forgot about it until he needed a character name when writing Silence In The Library. Then, when he took over, Amy Pond was named Pond to be able to tie into the Melody Pond/River Song arc he had in mind. That guy is so far ahead of us we should probably just give up.
 
2013-03-31 10:47:25 PM

dennysgod: One interesting note in regards to the mysterious "lady in the shop" that gave Clara the TARDIS number is that in the BBC shop channel where you can buy DVD's and stuff for the description of Season 1 with Eccleston it refers to the Doctors new companion as "His new assistant is Rose (Billie Piper), a shop-girl from the present day".


Wow, then someone must have gone back in time and made that first episode of the new series...because that is totally what Rose is when the Doctor meets her!
 
2013-03-31 11:48:05 PM

ZeroCorpse: I second the support for Colin Baker. He was entertaining, even when they did give him crappy stories. I'd love to see a Doctor with his bombastic personality again. But then, I'd also love to see a mysterious, oddball, dark Doctor like Two and Seven were.

Matt Smith brings a lot of those Doctors into his performance. He can be a bit bombastic-- In a polite way-- and he definitely brings the "ancient being playing a long game with the universe" aspect to it that Two and Seven were known for.

My favorite remains Seven. McCoy's Doctor and Aldred's Ace were a great mix of personalities and had some fairly fun (if not occasionally stupid) adventures. I wish they hadn't canceled the show during McCoy's run, because they were building up to some grand plan the Doctor had for Ace, and they never got to it.


The Cartmel Masterplan SUCKED, and wasn't hinted at as much as was originally planned because JNT, as terrible as he was, could tell that it would've sucked. I strongly doubt it would've happened even if the cancellation hadn't stopped it.
 
2013-04-01 12:45:22 AM

Mad_Radhu: HotWingAgenda: Is this the thread where we all gather to pretend the Doctor can just keep respawning infinitely like a hacked Mario game?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/oct/12/doctor-who-immort al -reveals-bbc
http://thedoctorwhopodcast.com/forum/index.php?topic=427.0

There's already been at least four different ways the Doctor can get more regenerations established in the series so far:

1. The Time Lords enforced the regeneration limit, so with them gone the cap is no longer there

2. The Time Lords reset the cycles for everyone fighting in the Time War, which makes sense because it would give them more effective warriors against the Daleks. This has already been established to have happened with The Master, since he was able regenerate normally after long having used up his regenerations.

3. Absorbing the Heart of the TARDIS from Rose gave the Doctor a new set of regenerations, since being exposed to the same time energy reverted the female Slitheen to an egg.

4. River only used up two of her regenerations, so if she gave her remaining ones to the Doctor, he would now have 10 left, assuming she has the same limit.

And those are all without pulling something out of left field.


My bet is on #2.  Even the original series (The Five Doctors) established that a high-enough legal authority in Time Lord society could grant an entirely new set of regenerations.
 
2013-04-01 05:02:41 AM

ZeroCorpse: I second the support for Colin Baker. He was entertaining, even when they did give him crappy stories. I'd love to see a Doctor with his bombastic personality again. But then, I'd also love to see a mysterious, oddball, dark Doctor like Two and Seven were.

Matt Smith brings a lot of those Doctors into his performance. He can be a bit bombastic-- In a polite way-- and he definitely brings the "ancient being playing a long game with the universe" aspect to it that Two and Seven were known for.

My favorite remains Seven. McCoy's Doctor and Aldred's Ace were a great mix of personalities and had some fairly fun (if not occasionally stupid) adventures. I wish they hadn't canceled the show during McCoy's run, because they were building up to some grand plan the Doctor had for Ace, and they never got to it.


Now, that's interesting to be because while I genuinely don't have a favorite Doctor, I do absolutely have a least favorite, and that's McCoy. Actually, "least favorite" doesn't even begin to describe how much I hate McCoy.

As a rabid "Doctor Who" fan who has seen every episode from Pertwee through Davison several times, and every Hartnell and Troughton I could get my hands on, and could answer just about any trivia question about the shows from '63 through '87 and '05 to the present, McCoy's portrayal was such a turn-off for me that I completely abandoned the show after forcing myself to suffer through his first season.

I mean, yes, the scripts sucked too, by and large -- and frankly, I'm no fan of Ace (great character, terrible actress). But it was McCoy that made me give up on "Doctor Who" in the '80s. Smug and condescending, yet nebbishy (at least Colin Baker's abrasiveness had some oomph behind it), those ridiculous rolling Rs -- I cringe just thinking about it.

I've recently tried rewatching a few of McCoy's episodes, and I just can't get through them. I just want to punch that little twerp.

And it's not McCoy himself - I've liked him in other roles. It's just his Doctor I find insufferable.

/aren't you glad I shared?
//rant off
 
2013-04-01 08:39:41 AM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Scandal in Belgravia: Oh, thank goodness that the code was something completely farking stupid.  And that Sherlock can infiltrate a terrorist cell in the matter of a week.
Hound of the Baskervilles: When your case-breaking clue is a t-shirt that is apparently a gift from the CIA to its secret program participants, the "fear gas" part becomes almost believable.
The Reichenbach Fall:  I will say it again: if they reveal Sherlock took some sort of drug that made him bouncy, people will hear my screams across the East Coast.  The sad thing is that the show is so shiattily written that a bouncy-fying drug is a possibility.

Like Doctor Who, Moffat has gone way too cute, and instead relies on pretty visuals to cover his lack of scripting up.  He is a good writer, so let's let him do that, shall we?  And let someone else do creative control?  I recently read in SFX that one of the new Who episodes is "Journey to the Center of the TARDIS," and it was a Moffat half-baked "movie poster" idea again.


Despite the unbelievable ending to S2E1, it was still a good episode overall.  And I think most seem to agree that S2E2-3 were pretty crappy.  I have no idea how they are going to explain away the season finale.  He seems to think that the same "suspension of disbelief" that applies to Dr. Who should apply to his other series.  No, Dr. Who has a high SoD factor, and that really shouldn't bleed into something more science-based like Sherlock.
 
But, the first season was pretty killer.
 
2013-04-01 01:20:50 PM
Surprised this thread died already and I am here to resurrect it!  I noticed a lot of people caught that the author of the book was Amelia Williams, but what about the leaf (not the same book I don't think)?  She said it was page 1 or the 1st page or something - anyone have any interesting theories?
 
Displayed 50 of 221 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report