|
Jerusalem posted:The Beginning Boxset is also good as it (loosely) details the gelling of the original group of travelers across the first three stories. I keep meaning to watch more of this, because I dig Hartnell, but I end up getting caught up in the commentaries on An Unearthly Child and never actually going on to the rest of the episodes. I don't normally care that much about making-of stuff, but I find the circumstances in which early Doctor Who was created to be endlessly fascinating for some reason. (And now I want to watch An Adventure In Space And Time again.)
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
The Daleks only has commentary on (from memory) the first and last episode, and it is a story with a LOT of padding. There's also a pretty  moral message about the uselessness of pacificism, and the story drags through most of the stuff that doesn't actually feature the Daleks themselves. I would never advise skipping parts, especially if you haven't yet seen the story, but do keep in mind the much slower pace and the fact they were still figuring out how the show worked.Edge of Destruction is only a 2-parter and works out to roughly the same length as a modern day episode of Who so it easier to watch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Your link does not in any support your argument and in fact indicates that it is an important part of almost any literary analysis, though, but you acknowledge that things do not have to be on a 1:1 basis. The fallacy is even more pronounced when discussing TV shows, which are, unlike literary works, a collaborative effort. Unless Moffat personally writes, directs, edits the show and acts out all the characters himself (Oh God that's an unpleasant vision), then he doesn't have total control over what the characters do and say, and his personal opinions don't have to factor into the show. Maybe the comments about make-up and high heels really were written by Moffat in full slut-shaming MRA mode, but if Capaldi acts those lines out as being a confused alien instead of full-on critical (which is how I interpreted his take) then the intended effect is gone and we can all sleep well knowing social justice has been done. Also, people usually argue about sexism because pop-culture and media are huge influences in our society, and if they present harmful stereotypes about women or any other group, then then can perpetuate and reinforce those stereotypes in the real world. This is especially true of shows aimed at kids that claim to teach good moral values - like Doctor Who. And this is why I don't see much point in discussing some Magic Eye Sexism that you can't see unless you pause the episode every 5 minutes to look at your giant wall of newspaper clippings about Moffat being awful. The subset of the audience that does this is miniscule, and that subset denounces those stereotypes anyway, so gently caress it. Stuff like this is what makes genetic fallacy a fallacy. I don't care if Moffat took a poo poo when writing the show, that doesn't make the show poo poo. The show is only poo poo if it's poo poo. ProfessorLoomis posted:Seriously, save your breath. You're going up against a viscous hive-mind in this thread.  But yeah, it only works when actually discussing the show itself and not "Moffat wrote. Moffat BAD!". PriorMarcus posted:But the overall opinion of this season has been really positive in the thread? Potsticker posted:From what I see, when people disagree about most things there's a lot more just accepting a difference in opinion and moving on. MrL_JaKiri posted:Let's not forgot that Pizdec was loudly arguing that clocks and fob watches were a huge thing in the original run of Doctor Who based on an offhand comment on the Doctor Who Wiki, not having seen any himself. Not a person who argues in good faith. Pizdec posted:I was thinking about the series in general. Apparently it's First, Seventh, Eighth (for what that's worth), Tenth and Eleventh. Pizdec posted:It's not a prominent thing but the symbol has been used Nice try though.  Jerusalem posted:I love that episode but man is,"It's like some sort of... volcano!" a clunky rear end line. They probably just meant a throwaway line though, or I'm just misremembering something. Pizdec fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Yeah, it's sort of easy to forget the weird anti-hippy vibe in The Daleks. Original Hartnell and "Doctor's Daughter" Tennant would have one hell of an argument 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Pizdec posted:This reminds me, hasn't Moffat or some else state that they plan to somehow touch upon the similarity? I'm imagining a Human Nature type episode with 12 stuck in Ancient Rome and meeting his younger self who ends up saving himself without even knowing. It could be a neat variation on the multiple Doctor episode. Deep Breath had a "this face is familiar, I wonder if my subconscious is telling me something?" thing with the hobo. I don't know if episode titles are spoilers but there's no explicit reference to Rome that I can see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Pizdec posted:This reminds me, hasn't Moffat or some else state that they plan to somehow touch upon the similarity? They never needed to remark upon it at all and I groaned when I heard Moffat planned to, but it seems like it was handled smoothly and subtly already in Deep Breath when the Doctor comments on having subconsciously "chosen" this particular face and knowing that it means he's trying to tell himself something but not understanding what. The context of the rest of the episode indicates subconsciously he was concerned about his own sense of morality, which makes sense since Caecilius can serve as a visual reminder of a very specific time in his life where he had his notion of what was right/wrong/necessary/inevitable called into question by his number one best companion of the revival so far, Donna. Paralleled with the Half-Face Man, it tells us that this Doctor is (or was) questioning his own fundamental notion of himself as a hero or a "good man". So I hope they leave it at that and never bring it up again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Oh, I missed that. That's very clever, but at the same time kind of anti-climactic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
It occurs to me it might be a good idea to rewatch Fires of Pompeii to see if there's anything there. I mean, Moffat didn't literally cast Capaldi because he wanted to bring back the actor that played Caecilius because of some symbolic reasons, but I'm sure Moffat rewatched Fires and saw some things in either Tennant's performance or Caecilius as a character that he thought might be worth mentioning later. I'm assuming it will be some sort of thing where in the eyes of the Doctor, Caecilius symbolizes something, like a Good Man. But I'd have to rewatch to see if that has any legs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:
I didn't like this. CobiWann's review acknowledges that this is a pretty divisive story, and for all that I recognize the guts it took to produce something this weird and different, and as much as I might enjoy various individual elements of it.... as a whole, the story is a big mess with an inconsistent tone that wants to have its cake and eat it too - a romping comedy AND a heartfelt emotional pull at the heartstrings. The story makes no bones about being confusing, that's pretty much a major point as the character of Sally is meant to be kept on the backfoot the whole time, because more than anything else Evelyn is attempting to keep her from thinking, to take her mind off of the things that are tearing her apart inside. Evelyn has the strongest performance of this story from an emotional standpoint, without anything near the Doctor's bombast but more engaging because it soon becomes apparent just how desperate she is in HER quest. The depth of the Doctor's care for Evelyn is apparent even if he appears detached or reserved - this whole story is happening because of her. We don't learn the specifics till the end of the story, but this is all about the Doctor doing everything he can to help his friend. I'm sure he has nothing against Sally, but he wouldn't be there if it wasn't what Evelyn wanted, and in the end that is who he cares about helping. I liked that, another example of the depth of their growing bond. But the mood whiplash, holy poo poo. Jokes are being thrown around like crazy, characters are deliberate walking stereotypes, there's an air of silliness about everything... and then people are being brutally beaten to death and Evelyn is getting smacked around and then suddenly it is back to singing songs and playful arguments between the snooty Captain and the put-upon Doctor. The worst example of this is in the criminally wasted Bill Oddie, who is brilliant but given a dog's breakfast to work with. When he's being ludicrous he's great, but it makes his moments of serious, psychopathic torture ridiculous, and very difficult to take serious. It doesn't help that his part in the story ends up with a gigantic joke, in fact the entire pirate storyline ends up that way. Maybe that fits as a type of Shaggy-Dog story since the real point was about Evelyn keeping Sally engaged, but an anti-climactic ending is still an anti-climactic ending. As for the musical aspects themselves, they're absolutely fine on their own. That's the problem with this story, it's full of a number of good to excellent individual elements but they don't mesh well together at all. The meta aspects of having Sally and Evelyn react in horror to discovering the story is turning into a musical are funny and nicely done, but they don't change the fact that this doesn't sit very well with the rest of the story around it. At the end of the day, this is a somewhat serious and well-intentioned story about survivor's guilt and suicide that serves as the framework for a very silly and inconsistently toned story about pirates that turns into a musical halfway through. It's something that [i]might[/b] have worked if they'd just tweaked it in a few places, but I think it would always be divisive. For a story like this to really work, in my opinion, you have to commit whole hog one way or the other - make it all serious or full on absurdist comedy, but don't try and have your cake and eat it too. All that said, the Doctor convincing the First Mate to walk the plank was hilarious!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
ProfessorLoomis posted:viscous hive-mind Ah, the good old "hivemind" argument, the sign that a poster is safe to put on ignore, as whatever they say from here on out can be safely dismissed without issue. Many thanks 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
"Viscious Hivemind" is a pretty  band name, though. ("viscous hivemind" less so, you usually don't want your hiveminds thick and gloopy)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Jsor posted:("viscous hivemind" less so, you usually don't want your hiveminds thick and gloopy) I still like my Nestene Consciousness joke
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
I just found something worth sharing that I'd mentioned in an earlier thread... there's a Doctor Who parody in a 1965 episode of I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again called "Doctor Why and the Thing". (Skip to 12:50) (I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again had some of the pre-Monty Python members involved, John Cleese, Eric Idle, and Graham Chapman, as well as all 3 of the eventual Goodies.) I found it pretty funny, and it's interesting hearing a parody of Doctor Who that is contemporary with the First Doctor!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:I just found something worth sharing that I'd mentioned in an earlier thread... there's a Doctor Who parody in a 1965 episode of I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again called "Doctor Why and the Thing". (Skip to 12:50) Kudos to the writers for the "Doctor Smith" joke, a reference to a story that aired 5 years in the future. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:I still like my Nestene Consciousness joke Yeah, that was good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:The Daleks only has commentary on (from memory) the first and last episode, and it is a story with a LOT of padding. There's also a pretty I really liked certain parts of the Daleks that would come off as being "weird' to modern audiences, particularly the stuff about the post-nuclear landscape in episode 1 but also in regards to the back and forth between the Thalls and the Daleks. It really did drag in the cave/sewer part, though. I think it had a very good message about pacifism and its limits, just as it had a strong condemnation of militarism and wars of conquest. The message wasn't that war was good, war was portrayed consistently through the serial as being a bad thing, it was that defensive war is sometimes necessary. Even in those cases it works to show the horror of war, portraying the Daleks deaths at the end as being a massacre with the the camera slowly panning out over a room of dead Daleks, pushed into corners and facing away from the camera.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Parts of it are really strong, even taking into account it was made 50 years ago. There are true moments of horror there, and the story is pretty clear in its condemnation of the horrors of nuclear war. But I thought stuff like the Thals being treated as foolish for falling for the Daleks' lure of food put across a pretty unsettling message of,"War is the ONLY option" I feel like it reflects the Cold War mentality of the time, or - since the Daleks are basically Space Nazis - is even a dig at the likes of Chamberlain for seeking appeasement. Of course this is television so yes the Daleks really are "pure" evil, but this is also their first appearance and Ian's criticism of the Daleks for "disliking the unlike" almost immediately after saying they have to be fought because they're "not human" is pretty hypocritical. Then again - the brief debate that Ian and Barbara have over the nature of pacifism and whether it can be an innate instinct in "human beings" or whether it only works as an idealized thought experiment is fascinating stuff. It's the type of thing that early Doctor Who frequently did, primarily because they also had the time and space (no pun intended) to allow dialogue like this to take place. Man now I feel like watching The Daleks again 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:They never needed to remark upon it at all and I groaned when I heard Moffat planned to, but it seems like it was handled smoothly and subtly already in Deep Breath when the Doctor comments on having subconsciously "chosen" this particular face and knowing that it means he's trying to tell himself something but not understanding what. The context of the rest of the episode indicates subconsciously he was concerned about his own sense of morality, which makes sense since Caecilius can serve as a visual reminder of a very specific time in his life where he had his notion of what was right/wrong/necessary/inevitable called into question by his number one best companion of the revival so far, Donna. Paralleled with the Half-Face Man, it tells us that this Doctor is (or was) questioning his own fundamental notion of himself as a hero or a "good man". I just assumed it was because Eleven still missed the Ponds, so he became a Scottish Roman  .Cliff Racer posted:I really liked certain parts of the Daleks that would come off as being "weird' to modern audiences, particularly the stuff about the post-nuclear landscape in episode 1 but also in regards to the back and forth between the Thalls and the Daleks. It really did drag in the cave/sewer part, though. I think it had a very good message about pacifism and its limits, just as it had a strong condemnation of militarism and wars of conquest. The message wasn't that war was good, war was portrayed consistently through the serial as being a bad thing, it was that defensive war is sometimes necessary. Even in those cases it works to show the horror of war, portraying the Daleks deaths at the end as being a massacre with the the camera slowly panning out over a room of dead Daleks, pushed into corners and facing away from the camera. Yeah this was the sort of message I got from the whole episode as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:I just assumed it was because Eleven still missed the Ponds, so he became a Scottish Roman Oh I'm definitely believing that Twelve is Scottish because of Amy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:I just assumed it was because Eleven still missed the Ponds, so he became a Scottish Roman I'd forgotten the Rory-Roman thing, I'm going with that for the reason now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Parts of it are really strong, even taking into account it was made 50 years ago. There are true moments of horror there, and the story is pretty clear in its condemnation of the horrors of nuclear war. But I thought stuff like the Thals being treated as foolish for falling for the Daleks' lure of food put across a pretty unsettling message of,"War is the ONLY option" A lot of the 'old guard' were very sceptical of the hippie/pacifist movement. Hell, conscientious objectors were considered traitors by a decently large part of the population during WW1. The Daleks is hardly the only Who story to express those sorts of views. It's basically the only interesting thing about The Dominators, for instance. (The Doctor has to save a group of pacifistic, wimpy hedonists dressed in weird, skimpy 'unmanly' clothes from aggressors that only understand force. It's hilariously unsubtle.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:A lot of the 'old guard' were very sceptical of the hippie/pacifist movement. Hell, conscientious objectors were considered traitors by a decently large part of the population during WW1. The Daleks is hardly the only Who story to express those sorts of views. It's basically the only interesting thing about The Dominators, for instance. (The Doctor has to save a group of pacifistic, wimpy hedonists dressed in weird, skimpy 'unmanly' clothes from aggressors that only understand force. It's hilariously unsubtle.) The thing is, the message in The Daleks isn't "sometimes you have to fight", it's "sometimes you have to attack". The Daleks are contained in their city and Ian demands that the Thals attack them mainly to achieve his personal goals. The Thals have done nothing but help the crew of the TARDIS, saving their lives from radiation poisoning, and he bullies them into attacking. At least in The Dominators, the titular aliens were actually doing something. There's a better (but still not good) connection to the problem of appeasement in that story. The Daleks aren't even a threat to the Thals until the TARDIS crew make them one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
I absolutely adore the poster for tomorrow's episode.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
HD DAD posted:I absolutely adore the poster for tomorrow's episode. Even in silhouette, that robot still looks like Garrus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
I immediately thought Garrus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
HD DAD posted:I absolutely adore the poster for tomorrow's episode. Doctor Who as 1970s bawdy comedy film?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Doctor Who as 1970s bawdy comedy film? It took Bernard Cribbins forty years to make up for it the last time that happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
The photoshoped wrinkle lines in the middles.  They REALLY need to feature those on the show somehow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
ProfessorLoomis posted:Seriously, save your breath. You're going up against a viscous hive-mind in this thread. They've formed a little clique in here, and dissenting opinions are met with holier than thou responses. Oh please, if you had some social awareness you would realise it's not anything like that
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Oh please, if you had some social awareness you would realise it's not anything like that Seriously, save your breath. You're going up against a viscous lone-mind in this guy. He's formed a little clique (with his imaginary friends) in here, and dissenting opinions are met with "STEVEN MOFFAT RULES SUPREME" responses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
The most bizarre thing about Something Awful Doctor Who is that in all three threads, there are posters talking about the other threads as though they are an entirely separate culture that they're incapable of interacting with, even though the people posting in all three threads are, by and large, the same and mostly saying the exact same thing in each thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I didn't like this. I'm sorry you didn't like ...and the Pirates. I certainly can't fault your reasoning, though. Now I see better why Cobi called it divisive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:The most bizarre thing about Something Awful Doctor Who is that in all three threads, there are posters talking about the other threads as though they are an entirely separate culture that they're incapable of interacting with, even though the people posting in all three threads are, by and large, the same and mostly saying the exact same thing in each thread. Nonsense. You're a cool dude, you know you hate that "Bicyclops" guy in the Occ thread too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:The most bizarre thing about Something Awful Doctor Who is that in all three threads, there are posters talking about the other threads as though they are an entirely separate culture that they're incapable of interacting with, even though the people posting in all three threads are, by and large, the same and mostly saying the exact same thing in each thread. These are the other threads then, hmm? A dandy and a clown?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:The most bizarre thing about Something Awful Doctor Who is that in all three threads, there are posters talking about the other threads as though they are an entirely separate culture that they're incapable of interacting with, even though the people posting in all three threads are, by and large, the same and mostly saying the exact same thing in each thread. There are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible things. Things which act against everything we believe in. They must be fought.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:These are the other threads then, hmm? A dandy and a clown? Wonderful threads, all of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
ProfessorLoomis posted:Seriously, save your breath. You're going up against a viscous hive-mind in this thread. They've formed a little clique in here, and dissenting opinions are met with holier than thou responses. For the record, I'm not so much a Moffat defender these days. That really doesn't account for why I come in here and snipe a little insult every now and then. Honestly, there's so much loving fake altruism and hot air in this thread, it makes me not even wanna be a Doctor Who fan. I keep coming back here though, every couple of days, to see if anyone had anything loving interesting or useful to say about the episode, and all i ever see is morons whining about literally every little loving thing. Even some of you who started pretty cool a year or two ago, now have just as big a stick up your asses as everyone else. It's like you guys hobby is loving finding anything that could be remotely construed as immoral/racist, then acting like white loving knights toward anyone who says otherwise. gently caress it, I typed this out, I'm posting it. My god are you a whiny little poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
I like this thread. I think there is a lot of disagreement here, but it's mostly very good-spirited and polite and people make an effort to understand others' point of view. And many of the posters are very interesting and full of opinions!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:I like this thread. I think there is a lot of disagreement here, but it's mostly very good-spirited and polite and people make an effort to understand others' point of view. And many of the posters are very interesting and full of opinions! Fungah! posted:My god are you a whiny little poo poo. Brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
BSam posted:Brilliant. His viewpoint is that everyone in the thread is ganging up to be snide to him and anyone else who agrees with him. That's just straight up not true and super annoying, and he comes in here and posts poo poo like this every few months. I'm personally kind of tired of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:42
|
|