Doctor Who... Page 904

Quote: Charlie Boy @ November 10 2012, 9:22 PM GMT

Why?

What was your review of it?

View original

Well on a very superficial level it had Suranne Jones in it, and I didn't mind the whole living Tardis thing, or the fact it chose the Dr. I didn't feel it was too out there and built on a mythology of the Tardis rather created it. One of the aspects of the show that has been little explored is the Tardis itself, apart from the odd episode where they explore other parts of what is a vast craft. I always welcome stories where the Tardis is explored, simple as that really.

Quite, the most powerful stuff for me was when the Dr discovered all those beacons from dead time lords. The Gaiman genius is he creates a dead character we never meet (the Corsair) and yet they have full emotional weight

The running around corridors bit was a bit weak.

Matt Smith at the end, dancing and twirling round the console room, totally in love with his TARDIS; absolute magic.

And the idea that the Dr only truly loved the Tardis and not his companions.
Made him mysterious and alien all over again.
Because with no more Gallifreyans, who was there left for him to love?

Quote: sootyj @ November 10 2012, 10:14 PM GMT

And the idea that the Dr only truly loved the Tardis and not his companions.
Made him mysterious and alien all over again.
Because with no more Gallifreyans, who was there left for him to love?

View original

Exactly, the Tardis is all he has left of his race. his only connection with his history and people

Quote: sootyj @ November 10 2012, 10:03 PM GMT

And you have I suspect been watching Eldorado and mistaking it for Dr WHo,

Perhaps one of its greatest charms and greatest weaknesses is there is no show bible. With ST Voyager the script writer would only write about 2 thirds of the script before handing it over to the Trek Bible experts who would write the other third.

And that maybe why it was such a stinker.

Who the Tardis has been alive, a vehicle, the inside of a loony bin there is no bible. The closest there ever was to a consistent Who bible was the Virgin New Adventure books.

Actually wanting a consistent Who bible is akin to wanting cellulite and pubes in a porn film.

View original

If only anyone could understand what you are saying!

Quote: sootyj @ November 10 2012, 10:03 PM GMT

And you have I suspect been watching Eldorado and mistaking it for Dr WHo,

Perhaps one of its greatest charms and greatest weaknesses is there is no show bible. With ST Voyager the script writer would only write about 2 thirds of the script before handing it over to the Trek Bible experts who would write the other third.

And that maybe why it was such a stinker.

Who the Tardis has been alive, a vehicle, the inside of a loony bin there is no bible. The closest there ever was to a consistent Who bible was the Virgin New Adventure books.

Actually wanting a consistent Who bible is akin to wanting cellulite and pubes in a porn film.

View original

If only anyone could understand what you are saying!

There was a Doctor Who bible, it was called The Making of Doctor Who, by Terrance Dicks, in 1972!

Quote from Amazon review

"This was the very first non-fiction book about Doctor Who, in which one of the greats of the show tells us how the show was made. Very firmly aimed at children, but this was the first,"

I can see why it appealed to you....

But a series bible isn't a jolly read about how much fun it was to make a show. It's the rigid set of guidelines that if you break as a writer you get fired.

One of the charms of DR Who is it doesn't have one. So each generation is born anew. Hence "Daleks" in Dalek are immortal killing machines that can wipe out a planet single handed. Where as in Sylvester McCoys era you can duff them up with a baseball bat.

You're looking for a rigidity that doesn't exist.

Quote: sootyj @ November 11 2012, 10:15 AM GMT

Quote from Amazon review

"This was the very first non-fiction book about Doctor Who, in which one of the greats of the show tells us how the show was made. Very firmly aimed at children, but this was the first,"

I can see why it appealed to you....

But a series bible isn't a jolly read about how much fun it was to make a show. It's the rigid set of guidelines that if you break as a writer you get fired.

One of the charms of DR Who is it doesn't have one. So each generation is born anew. Hence "Daleks" in Dalek are immortal killing machines that can wipe out a planet single handed. Where as in Sylvester McCoys era you can duff them up with a baseball bat.

You're looking for a rigidity that doesn't exist.

View original

You're probably right that I'm looking for a rigidity that doesn't exist, but I'd prefer rigidity, to Moffat constantly re-booting the Universe!
And in 1972, I was a child!

Was a child?

I kid

But dalek aside and a bit of the invasion storyline he who has horribly washed this iconic villain

I for one am utterly bored by Gian dalek CGI invasion fleets

Albeit ww2 daleks were a laugh shame other was so little of them

If they want to make Daleks scary again, they should be undefeatable. They should be an unstoppable evil force you're lucky to just escape from. They should barely even know or care who the Doctor is, and the only reason they haven't destroyed Earth yet is they don't care enough to make it a priority.

As opposed to now, where the Doctor just swans about in front of them completely unafraid making smart quips, and then pulls their trousers down. Again.

Lets kill a f**king companion, oh yes lets do one in.

Introduce them in ep one, make 'em sympathetic and then have them bummed to death with a dalek plunger in episode 6.

Then play the titles in silence like the queen had died.

And apologise on Bluepeter for making two mentally unstable kids kill themselves.

I've just watched some of the Pertwee episodes; The Silurians followed by Terror of the Autons. I haven't seen old Who since a child, so I was quite taken aback by the amount of deaths in it. Whole chunks of London being killed off by some disease, people being killed by reptiles and manikins left right and centre, some massive bloke even threatens to break the Doctor's arms.

So yes, bring back more killings.

And on a tiny budget. As someone pointed out in the Autons they couldn't even afford to show the Autons smashing a window.

That seems true of all TV like this from that era. I think someone mentioned this earlier, that because they didn't have the budget for special effects or to make it look even half decent, they put all their effort into story telling. I'm watching the old Twilight Zone episodes too, and the same is true for them. No special effects, just solid plot (usually).

I also much prefer the way Old Who episodes are all between 4-8 parts, it gives the plot far more room to breathe. My favourite New Who episodes are multi-parters, I don't know why they don't do that more. It also meant that a series of Doctor Who must've been on for half the year, rather than 13 weeks.