|
Stabbatical posted:I was thinking about the episode and I wasn't really sure what the rules of the monster were. So it ate people and could put some kind of toxic slime on them and lived in the dark. But it and its kind also eat light and will eat all the light in the universe unless they are stopped but also they really hate having light shined on them. Plus it can be stopped in its home dimension by brute force/Roman period weaponry but in our dimension it can kill almost an enitre Roman legion with little issue? Did it even get a name? I can't remember now. If I were to hazard a guess, the monster was probably supercharged by our yellow sun. Presumably they're weaker in their home dimension, hence the migration. So, really looking to next week's episode. Not really much of a fan of Simms' portrayal, but I like him as an actor, and I'm interested in seeing how he plays off Gomez, and the mechanics of a multi-Master story in general. What's really got me excited, though, are the retro-Cybermen designs. To echo what a lot of people have said, modern Cybermen lack much of the visceral medical horror.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
Cleretic posted:Well the crows aren't gay They might be. The gay cawgenda
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
Box of Bunnies posted:They might be. The gay cawgenda Bloody gay crows. Coming over here. Taking our... crows?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Stabbatical posted:I was thinking about the episode and I wasn't really sure what the rules of the monster were. So it ate people and could put some kind of toxic slime on them and lived in the dark. But it and its kind also eat light and will eat all the light in the universe unless they are stopped but also they really hate having light shined on them. Plus it can be stopped in its home dimension by brute force/Roman period weaponry but in our dimension it can kill almost an enitre Roman legion with little issue? Did it even get a name? I can't remember now. The monster fed on light (the doctor earlier mentions someone's bones have disintegrated from sunlight deprivation, so it's clearly working on "edible energy" rules where that makes sense; this is a common sci fi trope though), and the feeding was stated to make it stronger. Presumably, during the day, it can suck up sunlight, but at night it eats people. It wasn't afraid of sunlight in general, but light reflected through the amber lenses that the doctor identified with some technobabble name (chromatic nullifier, I think?). Presumably in it's home dimension where it can't feed on sunlight it's much weaker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Yeah, he described the light going through the lenses as 'poisoned' for the creature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Yeah, that all basically works. I guess I wasn't paying enough attention to some of the technobabble lines this time. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Nah, they did rattle through it all with some speed. I only know because I watched with subtitles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Nah, they did rattle through it all with some speed. I only know because I watched with subtitles. I could never watch this show with subtitles. Half the fun for me as a viewer is having some of what the Doctor says fly right over my head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
I've recently started to believe that bad stories don't have dumb concepts, viewers/readers/etc. are just harder on the concepts in bad stories. Suspension of disbelief, IOW, is mostly about the audience wanting to invest in the story; what makes the story good is more fundamental. Example: The monks in the 3ish-parter weren't all that much more inconsistent than the light eaters in this episode. But the light eaters were in a much better and better-told story with more interesting characters, so I'll give them a pass and rip all the dumb poo poo about the monks story to shreds. Maybe this is pretty elementary to anyone but me. Doctor Who is a pretty good place to observe the audience's relationship with outlandishness, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
So Gatiss and Moffat are going to be doing Dracula series for the BBC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Can't wait for everyone on tumblr to think of "Superwholocula"
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:So Gatiss and Moffat are going to be doing Dracula series for the BBC. Calling it now: Dracula will be Alexander Vlahos. Likewise, the official title will probably be "Drac" and he'll be a disaffected millennial who hates his PhD supervisor, Professor Van Helsing. I love Dracula. I love the novel, I love the movies, I love the character, and there's a whole bunch of spin-offs and remakes and reinterpretations I love as well. I'll be interested to see how this goes. Of course, I love Sherlock Holmes as well and I'm fairly equivocal about Sherlock, so we'll see. 
Wheat Loaf fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:So Gatiss and Moffat are going to be doing Dracula series for the BBC. Didn't Gatiss do Dracula for Big Finish?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Calling it now: Dracula will be Alexander Vlahos. Likewise, the official title will probably be "Drac" and he'll be a disaffected millennial who hates his PhD supervisor, Professor Van Helsing. Sherlock was awful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:So Gatiss and Moffat are going to be doing Dracula series for the BBC. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Can't wait for everyone on tumblr to think of "Superwholocula" Sherlock Whocula, surely?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Nah there's Supernatural in there too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Nah there's Supernatural in there too. Because of course there is. (I liked Supernatural for a while but there are some fandoms I will never engage with even a little and Supernatural's is at least three of them)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
docbeard posted:Because of course there is. If it's bad for a fandom to want two brothers to gently caress I don't want to be bad
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Namtab posted:If it's bad for a fandom to want two brothers to gently caress I don't want to be bad And to want the actors, who are both married IIRC, to gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Dabir posted:And to want the actors, who are both married IIRC, to gently caress. Is that worse than in Dexter where two actors who were married IRL, get divorced and then start boning on the show? Also that they are technically brother and sister in the show
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Is that worse than in Dexter where two actors who were married IRL, get divorced and then start boning on the show? Also that they are technically brother and sister in the show Just as bad, because all of that is still true of the Supernatural cast and fan demands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Sherlock was awful. There were bits of it I enjoyed. Obviously it's not as good as the Jeremy Brett series from the 1980s, but what is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:There were bits of it I enjoyed. The BBC radio series starring Clive Merrison.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
 I wonder how many callbacks to The Tenth Planet we'll see Or Invasion, or Tomb of the Cybermen 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Obviously it's not as good as the Jeremy Brett series from the 1980s, but what is? Seriously. That was an incredible series.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
I like to think of Sherlock as basically being Jonathan Creek filtered through several layers of dumb. Except most of the time Moffat can't even be bothered showing us how Sherlock's magic brain works through the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:The BBC radio series starring Clive Merrison. Merrison is great in those. 4 extra repeats them every so often and I always try to listen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:I like to think of Sherlock as basically being Jonathan Creek filtered through several layers of dumb. Except most of the time Moffat can't even be bothered showing us how Sherlock's magic brain works through the problem. Sherlock stops being a mystery show after a while. Even the actually good episode in season 4 isn't a conventional mystery.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
The trouble with Sherlock for me was that Moffat and Gatiss never seemed interested in doing actual mysteries, just the continued Great Game stuff. I count only 3 episodes out of 13 that are more or less standalone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Vinylshadow posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88woasIG27M And he was ginger as a young'un 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:The trouble with Sherlock for me was that Moffat and Gatiss never seemed interested in doing actual mysteries, just the continued Great Game stuff. I count only 3 episodes out of 13 that are more or less standalone. Sherlock started off okay - though I feel they made a mistake bringing in Moriarty as soon as they did - the second series is mostly enjoyable, with some very questionable moments, and yeah, too much focus on the Great Game. Series 3 lost me with ninja Mary Watson, and pissing away Lars Mikkelsen. Same for that Christmas special which was an hour-and-a-half explanation that the man who shot himself and died...shot himself and died. I don't even know what the hell was with Series 4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 10:20
|
|
|
pgroce posted:I've recently started to believe that bad stories don't have dumb concepts, viewers/readers/etc. are just harder on the concepts in bad stories. Suspension of disbelief, IOW, is mostly about the audience wanting to invest in the story; what makes the story good is more fundamental. You're neglecting the fact they needlessly burned two entire episodes just to get to actually facing off with the Monks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:You're neglecting the fact they needlessly burned two entire episodes just to get to actually facing off with the Monks. Extremis was an interesting idea and, I think, basically successful, and there's a really good idea at the core of the monks in Pyramid, even if the episode doesn't quite work. Lie was just a complete wet fart of an ending though. I can't believe it made it through a script that the monks don't even talk in that episode.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:Extremis was an interesting idea and, I think, basically successful, and there's a really good idea at the core of the monks in Pyramid, even if the episode doesn't quite work. Lie was just a complete wet fart of an ending though. I can't believe it made it through a script that the monks don't even talk in that episode. Extremis is almost interesting except that it has no resolution beyond "This doesn't matter and THE MONKS ARE COMING." Pyramid is an idiotic mess of nonsense and stupid ideas that are strained beyond breaking point to force the ending. Lie has people dying in large numbers in the six months the Monks rule the planet while The Doctor does nothing for no good reason, and ruins what could've been an decent standalone episode with two prior ones of buildup. Why are Monks here? How have they been here since the dawn of Earth's history? Why is the Doctor working for them? Doesn't matter, we know all this already. Also the Monks are a cheap Silence knockoff. They have been with mankind throughout history, control people through subliminal suggestion, and shoot lightning from their fingertips. Sound familiar?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
The Silence work in secret, have actually been around for all of history, and have a specific goal (that isn't conquering the planet), none of which is true for the Monks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
There wasn't really anything egregiously bad about any of the Monk episodes individually, they were all kinda mediocre. The problem is they didn't string together well, and if you're sticking us with the same villain and overarcing story for an unbroken quarter of the series, it'd better be a fun one. To date, the only three-parter we've had in the new series was the Master three-parter in series 3, and frankly I think John Simm himself is the reason that one worked, you just wanted to see as much of him as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:frankly I think John Simm himself is the reason that one worked, you just wanted to see as much of him as possible. Not to take away from Simm being a charismatic actor who played a great manic Master against Tennant's similarly energetic Doctor, but "holy poo poo, turns out the Doctor isn't actually the last of the Time Lords like we thought, here's the Master to really gently caress things up" is also a much greater hook justifying three episodes than "these monsters you just met have a further plan we'll maybe elaborate on in the next episode or two" regardless of who was in the role
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:There wasn't really anything egregiously bad about any of the Monk episodes individually, they were all kinda mediocre. The problem is they didn't string together well, and if you're sticking us with the same villain and overarcing story for an unbroken quarter of the series, it'd better be a fun one. To date, the only three-parter we've had in the new series was the Master three-parter in series 3, and frankly I think John Simm himself is the reason that one worked, you just wanted to see as much of him as possible. Face the Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent was a three parter. It's relative quality overall, I leave up to you to decide
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
Barry Foster posted:Face the Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent was a three parter. It's relative quality overall, I leave up to you to decide Heaven Sent is technically a needless detour between a two-parter story, but it's just so. good! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:24
|
|