|
My biggest question was... why did they just let that kid wander off? They knew there were flesh eating robot swarms right outside the door... and furthermore the Doctor knew that kid's mother was dead. But they just kind of abandoned him. I was also pretty unhappy with the resolution until people in here kind of explained it as the Doctor erasing the imperative to serve humans, rather than just straight up erasing everything, and that's what I'm gonna go with even if that's not exactly how the Doctor presented it, as it makes everything a lot better. As a side note, there have been a few eye rolls at the season arc of guarding the vault. Personally, I think it's a drat good season arc. It's not an intrusive mystery- there's a vault, he's guarding it, we don't know why but that's fine as there's a lot of plausible reasons. We're not presented with some kind of "bad wolf" mystery, with significance in its reoccurrence, devoid of all other meaning. It's a perfectly sensible situation where we just don't happen to know what's in the vault. While "no goddam contrived season long mystery" is a nice option in theory, I think something like this is probably the next best thing. There will be a finale where a long standing question will be answered, but there won't be some impossible or shocking mystery every episode distracting from things. Also, Nardole is hilarious and I have no idea what peoples problem with him is. He's a great companion.
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
sunnyboy posted:I also mean "stupid" in a very specific way. If you see someone doing things that are extraordinary (and the whole tardis reveal and first trip do qualify IMO), and then insist on or persist in being pigheaded about how right you are about everything, I call that stupid. Not just stupid, but farm-animal stupid. The writing really has been dreadful. This is not stupidity. This is contrasting values. It was probably one of the more legit reasons to ignore the Doctor in a series that has shown dozens of companions who refused to listen to him at one time or another. It's certainly not not, uh, "farm-animal" stuff. Edit: Heck, Bill's reasoning was probably correct. The Doctor will fix everything next episode, whereas he would have died if Bill listened to him, opening up the Earth to all sorts of nasty alien threats. Eiba fucked around with this message at 00:37 on May 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:It is a dumb premise, but I like to think of the President of Earth thing as the various governments just admitting that trying anything else goes badly. Any time he's gotten involved and they shunned his advice, people died. Any time they tried to stop him and do their own thing, people died. Any time the Doctor's gone up against the alien threat after their people died, the aliens died. Standard policy is now to stand the gently caress back and let the Doctor sort it out, because they've learned their goddamn lesson by now. The hard way. At least last time it was brought up he was all, "No, no, no, this is messed up, I don't want this," and there was some attempt at doing something interesting with it, but in this episode he just kind of accepted it as only natural and rolled with it, while acting no different than he would have as a UNIT consultant or something, so all it did was put the Doctor on a pointless unsatisfying pedestal. I actually don't think this last episode was all that bad, but the whole concept of "President of Earth" is something I'd rather the show just drop.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Honestly, it's not really a three parter. Just three stories with the same villains. The first one was quite good I think. Very interesting ideas, passable execution. The second one also had neat ideas, but the story didn't quite come together, but honestly those vaguely neat ideas are all that matter going into the third one. Specifically how the invaders must be loved and invited to rule the Earth. It's quite possible, even likely given the track record of the other two parts, that there will again be some neat concepts in an awkward story, but nothing about the awkwardness of these stories means they can't pull of a nice rebels and totalitarians story with, presumably, some nifty twists. But the point is, they're isolated enough from each other that it's not like part three needs to wrap up an arc started in part one. It's more like there's a recurring villain that happened to show up in three consecutive episodes. Like three different Silence stories, or three Angel stories.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:An actor doing an imitation of another actor's performance of a specific character is weird, though. It limits the potential of the new actor to give their interpretation of the role (they are specifically imitating another actor's imitation rather than giving their own) quote:and also feels disrespectful to to the original actor they're imitating. What is disrespectful about trying to portray another actor's performance? How is that fundamentally different than like... all other acting? I'll concede it's got less room for creativity and new life and all that, but in terms of respect/morality I'm having trouble seeing the issue.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2017 18:48
|
|