# Dr Who -- kinda lame this season



## TheLe (Aug 21, 2007)

[imager]http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/images/blocks/block-shakespeare.jpg[/imager]So, does the current season of Dr Who (on scifi channel) get any better? I've been very underwhelmed the last few episodes.

*Runaway Bride* - Great start of the post Rose-era.
*Smith and Jones* - Great intro to the new sidekick. I like the new girl quite a bit.
*The Shakespeare Code* - Excellent episode, reminds me of last season
*Gridlock* - Very creepy, very depressing, very cool. 
*Daleks in Manhattan* - very very BLAH
*Evolution of the Daleks* - Part II of very very BLAH
*The Lazarus Experiment* - Not suspenseful or interesting
*42* - I have not seen it yet

I guess my threat title is misleading. Overall I have liked this season, but only barely. The last 3 episodes I have seen were pretty bad by Dr. Who standards. This season certainly started out great, but its starting to whimper out. 

Maybe "42" will be back to norm, and maybe "Torchwood" will be interesting too (coming to BBC America next month!!!)

~Le


----------



## Huw (Aug 21, 2007)

You've got _Blink_ and the _Human Nature/Family of Blood_ two parter to look forward to   

I agree with your assessments of the first half of the season.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 21, 2007)

Huw said:
			
		

> You've got _Blink_ and the _Human Nature/Family of Blood_ two parter to look forward to




And just because it is worth saying again, those two are VERY cool (especially Blink - had my wife hiding under a blanket several times!)


----------



## Villano (Aug 21, 2007)

Runaway Bride - Catherine Tate was a bit annoying, but otherwise a pretty good episode.

Smith and Jones - Great episode.

The Shakespeare Code - Great episode.

Gridlock - I hated this one.  This was one of those episodes that stretched my suspension of disbelief past the breaking point.  People are willing to spend 30 years driving a mile rather than just giving up and walking?  It felt like they were trying too hard to be "British weird", if you understand what I mean.

Daleks in Manhattan & Evolution of the Daleks - Not bad.

The Lazarus Experiment - Very blah.

42 - Anyone else watch this and think, "Hey, weren't there Ood in this episode last time I saw it?"


----------



## Goodsport (Aug 21, 2007)

TheLe said:
			
		

> my threat title


----------



## Fast Learner (Aug 22, 2007)

Smith and Jones and The Shakespeare Code were the highlights of the first half of the season, which was otherwise so-so. The second half, though... watch out! Great stuff!


----------



## Capellan (Aug 22, 2007)

With the exception of three episodes (Blink, Human Nature, Family of Blood), season 3 is a dog.  And yes, I include the execrable season finale in that.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Aug 22, 2007)

I've not seen the ending to series three, but from what I've heard it's not as shabby as "Dalaks Do New York" and "Gridlock." So maybe the middle is poor, but the ending and start of series three is solid.

And Martha is a right hottie I tell ya.

So, the Cybermen, Macra, Dalaks and the Master have all been brought back. I wonder who is next, for series four... the Sontarans? Space Vampires? Those green-slug people?


----------



## horacethegrey (Aug 22, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> So, the Cybermen, Macra, Dalaks and the Master have all been brought back. I wonder who is next, for series four... the Sontarans? Space Vampires? Those green-slug people?



I wouldn't mind seeing the Sontarans, provided they're as ruthless and as cunning as Lynx (the first Sontaran to debut in _The Time Warrior_). And I definitely hope the Cybermen return (not the alternate universe Cybus models, but the original Mondas natives). 

But please, no Space Vampires. I thought they were horribly (pun not inteded) handled in State of Decay, and I don't think it'd be a big loss if we never see or hear of them again.


----------



## Richards (Aug 23, 2007)

Sontarans would be cool.  I wouldn't mind seeing the Zygons return, either.  And don't forget, we've also already seen the return of the Autons.

Johnathan


----------



## delericho (Aug 23, 2007)

Capellan said:
			
		

> With the exception of three episodes (Blink, Human Nature, Family of Blood), season 3 is a dog.  And yes, I include the execrable season finale in that.




Three episodes? I guess tastes vary - I counted this season as by far the best of the new show, with nine very strong episodes (with the two Dalek episodes, the Gridlock episode, and the execrable season finale as the exceptions). In fact, it was the very strength of the season as a whole that made the finale such a crushing disappointment.


----------



## horacethegrey (Aug 23, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> In fact, it was the very strength of the season as a whole that made the finale such a crushing disappointment.



Which is precisely why Russel T. Davies should not write the season ending eps this next season. :\


----------



## delericho (Aug 23, 2007)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Which is precisely why Russel T. Davies should not write the season ending eps this next season. :\




Agreed. He seems to be a good showrunner, and I do like the direction he's taken the show in (mostly), but the episodes that he _doesn't_ write do seem significantly stronger than the ones he does. That said, I thought "Bad Wolf"/"Parting of the Ways" from the 'first' season were excellent.


----------



## sckeener (Aug 24, 2007)

Blink was my hands down favorite of the season.  It creepped out my SO for about a week.  

The Shakespeare Code would probably be my 2nd favorite of the season mostly for the quotes...

I liked "The Family of Blood" better than the first part...mostly for the ending...it just fits with the way I play my characters.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 24, 2007)

Capellan said:
			
		

> With the exception of three episodes (Blink, Human Nature, Family of Blood), season 3 is a dog.  And yes, I include the execrable season finale in that.




For me it was 42, Blink, and the Human Nature 2 parter to a lesser extent.  The season finale was horrid, but then again most stuff RTD writes is.  Fire him and have Moffat write the whole show!!!!

Blink is amazing btw.  Just amazing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 24, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Blink is amazing btw.  Just amazing.



Yes. I loved it a lot, too. I also think it probably has the best performance of guest actors I have seen so far. Okay, maybe it was just the looks of the actress, 



Spoiler



but the scene with the police detective alone was just to cool. Or the scene at her girlfriends/girlfriends brothers flat. "Pants?" "No."


----------



## Rackhir (Aug 24, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> For me it was 42, Blink, and the Human Nature 2 parter to a lesser extent.  The season finale was horrid, but then again most stuff RTD writes is.  Fire him and have Moffat write the whole show!!!!
> 
> Blink is amazing btw.  Just amazing.




I can just imagine the Doctor running into the cast from coupling...


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Aug 25, 2007)

Just watched the latest. Not sure how they can drag it out for another hour and make it interesting. And won't find out for two weeks!


----------



## Volaran (Aug 26, 2007)

I have to say that while I do greatly enjoy how RTD writes individual scenes, his episodes overall are sort of...loose.  Fully of plot holes, not internally consistentm etc.  I do like him as a showrunner, as other people have mentioned, but I also agree that he should probably be writing fewer scripts directly, or perhaps at least co-writing them.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 27, 2007)

I am feeling somewhat in agreement with the thread premise. While Martha is pretty good overall this season has been weak. It started strong but the middle is definitely in a funk. Some of you are saying Human Nature is a good episode for the season but I found Part 1 to be pretty boring, I hope Part 2 makes up for it. I will wait and see about Blink but so far I have not been impressed. 

In a previous thread we were rating Doctors. I put Tennant at 3rd (behind Doctors 4 and 3) with the potential to move up. So far this season though is doing nothing to move it up but it isn't dragging it down either. While I agree it may be weak, that is in comparison to what I have seen with Tennant so far and it sill ranks above most of the other Doctors.


----------



## TheLe (Aug 27, 2007)

Well, I just saw the episode, *"42"*. It was kind of blah. Yes, it felt very much like the OOD episode last season.

But my main problem is that it really moved too fast. For the record, I don't like 2-parters -- I like a single contained episode. However, *"42"* felt extremely rushed. They could have definitely broken it up into two episodes and made us care a little bit more about the characters.

~Le


----------



## Fast Learner (Aug 27, 2007)

The second half -- and mostly the end of the second half -- is what pulls Human Nature/Blood Ties together so well.

Oh, and if y'all don't end up liking Blink, then all is lost for you.


----------



## sniffles (Aug 27, 2007)

TheLe said:
			
		

> Well, I just saw the episode, *"42"*. It was kind of blah. Yes, it felt very much like the OOD episode last season.
> 
> But my main problem is that it really moved too fast. For the record, I don't like 2-parters -- I like a single contained episode. However, *"42"* felt extremely rushed. They could have definitely broken it up into two episodes and made us care a little bit more about the characters.
> 
> ~Le



42 minutes is the length of a standard episode of Doctor Who. So they were making a point that they can tell an entire story in 42 minutes. It was rushed because it was supposed to be.

That said, I think it wasn't the strongest episode this season. [sblock] But I really liked the scene where Martha had to put the Doctor in the medical device to try to remove the solar entity that had possessed him and the Doctor told her, "I'm scared. I'm really scared." It isn't often we see him so vulnerable. [/sblock]

This season was spectacularly good, IMHO.


----------



## TheLe (Aug 27, 2007)

sniffles said:
			
		

> 42 minutes is the length of a standard episode of Doctor Who. So they were making a point that they can tell an entire story in 42 minutes. It was rushed because it was supposed to be.
> 
> That said, I think it wasn't the strongest episode this season. [sblock] But I really liked the scene where Martha had to put the Doctor in the medical device to try to remove the solar entity that had possessed him and the Doctor told her, "I'm scared. I'm really scared." It isn't often we see him so vulnerable. [/sblock]
> 
> This season was spectacularly good, IMHO.




I just read your spoiler and I have to disagree. The doctor's comment feels very out-of-character and not believable at all. 

`Le


----------



## Byrons_Ghost (Aug 27, 2007)

I've been pretty blase about this season, too. I haven't been keeping track of the writing credits, but I'm surprised to hear that people think Davies isn't quite up to snuff anymore. The episodes he did in season 1 were by far my favorite.

Possibly he's getting burnt out. I do think the show would definately benefit from a greater pool of writers. For something like this, a sci-fi show with only loosly connected plots, it's almost better to treat it more as an anthology than an ongoing series. What I mean is  shows like the original Twilight Zone and Outer Limits. They had a large pool of skilled writers and weren't afraid to let them go to strange places.

Another problem I have is the change in the Doctor's personality. I like Tennant, but Eccleston had a really intense, energetic performance that couldn't help but draw you into the show. Tennant's Doctor is more laid back and philosophical. I understand the need to change personas along with the regeneration, but Tennant just doesn't engage me like Eccleston did.


----------



## horacethegrey (Aug 28, 2007)

TheLe said:
			
		

> I just read your spoiler and I have to disagree. The doctor's comment feels very out-of-character and not believable at all.



How is it out of character? There have been many instances where the Doctor in his various incarnations has shown fear and vulnerability. Off the top of my head here are some I can remember:

*First Doctor* - meeting the Daleks for the first time in _The Daleks_.
*Second Doctor* - having a Cyberman nearly drag him down to their lair in _The Tomb of the Cybermen_.
*Third Doctor* - being tortured by the Keller Machine in _The Mind of Evil_.
*Fourth Doctor* - coming face to face with Sutekh in _The Pyramids of Mars_.
*Fifth Doctor* - nearly being torn apart by the android servants of Shares Jek in _The Caves of Androzani_.
*Ninth Doctor* - meeting the lone Dalek firsthand in _Dalek_.

Despite his alien nature, the Doctor in many respects is just as human as you or I am. He may be brave and have a strong will, but he can be afraid at times of the things he faces. Bu that's just one of the reasons he's such a great character.


----------



## Fast Learner (Aug 28, 2007)

Whereas Tennant engages me significantly more than Eccleston did. The latter was just too serious, too... well, too much like the older Doctors.


----------



## Erik Mona (Aug 28, 2007)

For my money, "Utopia" is as good as Doctor Who gets, period. That episode had me pumping my fist and shouting like those two girls in the "whogasm" video.

I'm sure the "surprise" has been well and fully spoiled here and elsewhere, but holy crap. That was a great episode.

And I didn't mind the last episode, either. I suppose people didn't care for the lame bit of CGI or the deus ex machina ending, but those of us who have watched the show our whole lives understand that the franchise has had a lot of extremely lame moments, and that it can survive them very, very easily.

I think I like Season 3 less than the first two (I'd probably go 2, 1, 3), but that's probably because the show suffers a bit from the absence of Rose Tyler, who turned out to be hugely important.

Torchwood is worth watching, but again, prepare to be at least a little disappointed in each episode. The last couple episodes were great, though, and that Bellis Manger character is welcome to show up in the mainline Doctor Who continuity any time he wishes.

But hey, take my point of view with a grain of salt, because I also really enjoyed the Sarah Jane Adventures show! 

--Erik Mona


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Sep 8, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> Just watched the latest. Not sure how they can drag it out for another hour and make it interesting. And won't find out for two weeks!



Well, its two weeks later and I'm disappointed. Not because they didn't find an entertaining way to drag it out, but because of the PCness of it. Headmaster, a former soldier, has just seen his second-in-command at the school killed. Goes back in and barricades the place. Good. Mr. Smith goes and looks out a window at the two of the Family of Blood who are there. Fine. But the headmaster must have known he could have seen them from there as well. Why didn't he grab a rifle, and the best student marksman with one, and go blow their brains out? Because that was what he should have done. Then there was the little girl who disintegrates the Headmaster. Ok, I'll accept that the students were too stunned at that to blast her into little tiny pieces then and there... but not after she *taunts* them! She was dead as soon as she opened her mouth. (There would have been at least one or two, if not half of them, who would have been sufficiently enraged to shoot her. Especially as she shot the Headmaster after he tried to 'save' her.) But nooooo, that wouldn't have been PC. 

And I didn't much care for the fact that the Doctor was perfectly willing to let dozens of Humans get killed just so he wouldn't have to get his hands dirty, and then did anyway. (Without actually killing anyone, of course.) Oh yeah, and lets make one a scarecrow. Like the outfit is never going to rot away or be moved!


----------



## Chimera (Sep 9, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> Then there was the little girl who disintegrates the Headmaster. Ok, I'll accept that the students were too stunned at that to blast her into little tiny pieces then and there... but not after she *taunts* them! She was dead as soon as she opened her mouth. (There would have been at least one or two, if not half of them, who would have been sufficiently enraged to shoot her. Especially as she shot the Headmaster after he tried to 'save' her.) But nooooo, that wouldn't have been PC.




I had the same initial thought on watching the show, but I have two answers to this;

1>  Dr. Who is a "family" show.  Killing a little girl, even if she is evil, isn't going to fly.  Only constructs get shot by the good guys.  Only the bad guys kill real people, including aliens.
2>  You have to remember the time as well.  That was the Age of Chivalry, and there's pretty much no chance they're going to machine gun a little girl in upper class Britain of the early 1900's.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Sep 9, 2007)

Chimera said:
			
		

> I had the same initial thought on watching the show, but I have two answers to this;
> 
> 1>  Dr. Who is a "family" show.  Killing a little girl, even if she is evil, isn't going to fly.  Only constructs get shot by the good guys.  Only the bad guys kill real people, including aliens.
> 2>  You have to remember the time as well.  That was the Age of Chivalry, and there's pretty much no chance they're going to machine gun a little girl in upper class Britain of the early 1900's.



Oh, I thought of both those points. But it still ticked me off. Made an excellent episode just that much less so, IMO.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Sep 10, 2007)

I was dissapoited in this 2 parter as well. I can see what they were trying to achieve with making the Doctor human but it just wasn't executed as well as I feel it could have been. Of the 2 parters I prefered the Daleks take Manhattan to this one. The best part I felt was only incedental to the story and that was the last 5 minutes and the tribute to the WWI soldiers. 

I am still looking forward to Blick though.


----------



## Elf Witch (Sep 10, 2007)

I have really liked this season. The only epiosde that kinda bored me was Gridlock. The rest I thought were great. I really like Martha I think she is an improvement on Rose who often just annoyed me.

Blink scared the hell out of me. The Shakesphere Code was just fun I got a kick out of the Harry Potter jokes.

42  was great I loved the rushed feeling and the fear the the Doctor showed. The scene where Martha is telling her mom she loves because she thinks she is about to die is heartbreaking. 

Daleks have never been a favorite but I liked this one because of the one dalek realizing how they needed to change. I did think the pig slaves were stupid but its Dr Who.

The two part epiosde where the Dr becomes human I enjoyed quite a bit. Mainly because of Martha and watching her reactions of being an educated black woman forced to be a scullery maid and having to watch the DR fall in love with someone besides her. 

I am looking forward to the rest of the episodes.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 10, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I was dissapoited in this 2 parter as well. I can see what they were trying to achieve with making the Doctor human but it just wasn't executed as well as I feel it could have been. Of the 2 parters I prefered the Daleks take Manhattan to this one. The best part I felt was only incedental to the story and that was the last 5 minutes and the tribute to the WWI soldiers.




Wow.  It's amazing how tastes differ.  I thought _Daleks in Manhattan _ was awful.  But these two (admittedly it's been months since I saw them) I remember as being by far my favourite of the series - really, really strong performances.  The ending with the "Fury of the Time Lord".  Tennant's performance as Smith (that man can _act_!) and the guy who played the older, creepy schoolboy whose name I forget.

_Blink _ was superb, too.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Sep 10, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Wow.  It's amazing how tastes differ.  I thought _Daleks in Manhattan _ was awful.  But these two (admittedly it's been months since I saw them) I remember as being by far my favourite of the series - really, really strong performances.  The ending with the "Fury of the Time Lord".  Tennant's performance as Smith (that man can _act_!) and the guy who played the older, creepy schoolboy whose name I forget.
> 
> _Blink _ was superb, too.




I'm not saying it was awful. It is still many times better than anything Collin Baker did. I just don't feel it was up to the level that I know they can do with Tennant. The problem was not the acting (except I think Tennant overacted a bit) particularly with the supporting cast doing terrific jobs. "Son of Mine" was exceptionally good and deserves a nomination for whatever the British version of an Emmy for Outstanding Guest Actor is. I also recognized "Wife of Mine" from somewhere but I can't place it (I'm sure she has done lots). No the problem I felt was the misshandling of the Doctor being human in the script and then dragging it out for 2 hours (with commercials). Like I said previously I can see what they were trying to do, I just don't think they pulled it off. I am not sure how I would have done it better though. My complaints are not that the episodes this season are bad, just that they are not as good as would hope for because I am trying to compare them with the best of Doctor Who because I feel they can be that good right now.

As for Blink I do hope it is as good as everyone says.


----------



## delericho (Sep 10, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> Well, its two weeks later and I'm disappointed. Not because they didn't find an entertaining way to drag it out, but because of the PCness of it.




I'm not sure it's fair to call it on PCness. Unusually, that episode featured rampant racism, sexism and classism, presented not as something wrong with those involved, and not as just a product of the times, but rather just something that _is_. That was a bold move right there. If they'd been being PC, they'd have ignored the issue, or featured a scene of the Doctor and Martha discussing how we'd evolved beyond such things.

Plus, if they'd been being PC there would have been absolutely no question of them giving guns to teenage boys, let alone having them use them. Remember, unlike the US, the UK have massive controls on firearms, and the public at large is much more leery of them, and especially of them being portrayed in anything other than a horribly negative light.

And then there's the Doctor, our hero, authorising one boy to take another boy and give him a "good thrashing". Sure, he was human at the time, but still...



> Headmaster, a former soldier, has just seen his second-in-command at the school killed. Goes back in and barricades the place. Good. Mr. Smith goes and looks out a window at the two of the Family of Blood who are there. Fine. But the headmaster must have known he could have seen them from there as well.




I'll give you that one...



> Why didn't he grab a rifle, and the best student marksman with one, and go blow their brains out? Because that was what he should have done.




But not that one. It was strongly portrayed as being incredibly difficult for those boys to engage in machinegun fire against a clear, present and immediate threat (and rightly so... that was a very powerful scene, IMO). And that was something they had trained extensively for.

Asking a boy to outright assassinate the enemy with a rifle? No, not going to happen. Perhaps if he'd gotten one of the other staff to do it. (Besides, that whole line of enquiry is like asking of Back to the Future III, "why don't they use the gas from the Delorean in the mine?" It simply doesn't fit the story logic.)



> Then there was the little girl who disintegrates the Headmaster. Ok, I'll accept that the students were too stunned at that to blast her into little tiny pieces then and there... but not after she *taunts* them! She was dead as soon as she opened her mouth. (There would have been at least one or two, if not half of them, who would have been sufficiently enraged to shoot her. Especially as she shot the Headmaster after he tried to 'save' her.) But nooooo, that wouldn't have been PC.




Again, are you sure you're not thinking of modern American kids? Kids today are considerably harder and more jaded than their counterparts of even twenty years ago. In the show, we're dealing with priviledged English children of 1913, the last year before the Great War inflicted untold horrors on the world.

Even when they were being trained with the machine guns, they were being trained for military service in the British Empire, where they would most likely have to use the guns against 'savages' of the various colonies. To ask them then to use their weapons against a _little girl_, not to mention one they'd probably seen around the place, and may well have talked to...

I wouldn't have been too shocked had at least one taken a shot. But I couldn't declare it was unrealistic (or PC) just because none of them did.



> And I didn't much care for the fact that the Doctor was perfectly willing to let dozens of Humans get killed just so he wouldn't have to get his hands dirty, and then did anyway. (Without actually killing anyone, of course.)




I was quite surprised that Mr Smith didn't take a shot. On the other hand, though, the Doctor rarely if ever actually kills someone. He even refused to wipe out the Daleks in "Genesis of...", despite knowing full well the horrors that they would unleash. And the episode did show that at least some of his personality remained as a human.



> Oh yeah, and lets make one a scarecrow. Like the outfit is never going to rot away or be moved!




Again, story logic. Perhaps he put one of those perception filter thingies on the scarecrow?


----------



## Morrus (Sep 10, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> No the problem I felt was the misshandling of the Doctor being human in the script and then dragging it out for 2 hours (with commercials).




Well, any commercials you may get have nothing to do with the show's creators.  It's shown without commercials here.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Sep 10, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> But not that one. It was strongly portrayed as being incredibly difficult for those boys to engage in machinegun fire against a clear, present and immediate threat (and rightly so... that was a very powerful scene, IMO). And that was something they had trained extensively for.
> 
> Asking a boy to outright assassinate the enemy with a rifle? No, not going to happen. Perhaps if he'd gotten one of the other staff to do it. (Besides, that whole line of enquiry is like asking of Back to the Future III, "why don't they use the gas from the Delorean in the mine?" It simply doesn't fit the story logic.)
> 
> ...



Ok, I'll grant that it wasn't as PC as I was thinking. I still think that the Headmaster should have shot at least one of the Family. 

As for the girl, I'm not so sure. Some of the boys were shown to be be not a lot older than she was. This was after they'd shot up the scarecrows and the Headmaster had been killed. More to the point, to many boys that age girls are _The Enemy_. Even more to the point, if you're not going to let kids get killed, don't put them into situations where they probably should be. That's just plain cheating. 

I don't accept the proposition that 'story logic' trumps real locic. If you can't think of something that isn't dumb in the first place, don't do it!


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> I don't accept the proposition that 'story logic' trumps real logic.



Don't you find that statement a little ironic in the context of a discussion about a show featuring 900 year old, self-reincarnating alien time traveler?


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Sep 11, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Don't you find that statement a little ironic in the context of a discussion about a show featuring 900 year old, self-reincarnating alien time traveler?



  Ok, but it can get to be a bit much at times.


----------



## delericho (Sep 11, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Don't you find that statement a little ironic in the context of a discussion about a show featuring 900 year old, self-reincarnating alien time traveler?




Actually, I don't. That's just an element of the premise of the show, which I accept going in. If, however, the plot revolves around a character who is known to be extremely intelligent and blessed with a very level head suddenly becoming an incompetent moron, I have a problem.

However, there is a huge problem with applying 'real logic' too rigorously, and that is that every story becomes a non-story. Either the protagonist sidesteps the entire plot (Back to the Future III), or the villain wipes out the good guys without a thought (the Evil Overlord list).

And in D&D, every adventure is a TPK, because the bad guys put their most vicious traps in the most awkward places in their lairs, wire them precisely so that the Rogue who goes looking for them in the 'right' places gets hit by the _other_ trap... oh, and the bad guys concentrate their forces at the first sign of an incursion, so that the PCs find themselves immediately outnumbered and slain.

Basically, 'real logic' is all well and good... but if you apply it too far, the story falls apart very quickly.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 11, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> As for the girl, I'm not so sure. Some of the boys were shown to be be not a lot older than she was. This was after they'd shot up the scarecrows and the Headmaster had been killed. More to the point, to many boys that age girls are _The Enemy_. Even more to the point, if you're not going to let kids get killed, don't put them into situations where they probably should be. That's just plain cheating.




I'm a Brit, and I can tell you that the children's unwillingness to actually shoot someone standing in front of them in cold blood is very realistic. Considering how difficult it is to even get normal adults to shoot one another in wartime (an interesting commentary on this is available to read here http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/grossman.html) I felt that the childrens reluctance to fire was exactly right.

And I have to say that considering girls to be 'the enemy' has never (in the UK at least) equated them to being an enemy you want to physically harm. It was always a sort of 'cold war' at best, all posturing and not wanting them to play in the same patch of playground...

Cheers


----------



## Elf Witch (Sep 11, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll grant that it wasn't as PC as I was thinking. I still think that the Headmaster should have shot at least one of the Family.
> 
> As for the girl, I'm not so sure. Some of the boys were shown to be be not a lot older than she was. This was after they'd shot up the scarecrows and the Headmaster had been killed. More to the point, to many boys that age girls are _The Enemy_. Even more to the point, if you're not going to let kids get killed, don't put them into situations where they probably should be. That's just plain cheating.
> 
> I don't accept the proposition that 'story logic' trumps real locic. If you can't think of something that isn't dumb in the first place, don't do it!




Doctor Who has killed children before. In the episode with Sarah Jane the headmaster eats a little girl. 

In this case it made sense based on the time setting and the students involved that thye would not shoot down a little english girl. Sure boys may have looked at girls as the enemy but they were also brought up that woman folk both young and old were their responsibility to protect. They writers did not cheat in this epsiode they wrote proper behavior for the time setting.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 11, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> Ok, but it can get to be a bit much at times.



Yeah, it can... I think I cut the show's plotting a lot of slack because I'm totally charmed by the way they write the characters.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 11, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> That's just an element of the premise of the show...



A _children's_ show, when you get right down to it.



> If, however, the plot revolves around a character who is known to be extremely intelligent and blessed with a very level head suddenly becoming an incompetent moron, I have a problem.



Unfortunately, so much action sci-fi depends on people acting like morons. If they didn't, they would get into the wonderful improbable and deliriously contrived situations that make adventure programming adventurous.

It's hard to have 'good dumb fun' without a modicum of dumb. But you're right, too much can spoil the experience. I really appreciate writers with the finesse to pull that off.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 13, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> ...but because of the PCness of it.  ... Ok, I'll accept that the students were too stunned at that to blast her into little tiny pieces then and there... but not after she *taunts* them! She was dead as soon as she opened her mouth.




The point is that these children have been playing at war up until now, with their paper targets and whatnot. When faced with the real thing, a real flesh and blood enemy, they can't do it. They're not ready, and won't be ready.


----------



## TheLe (Sep 13, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I was dissapoited in this 2 parter as well. I can see what they were trying to achieve with making the Doctor human but it just wasn't executed as well as I feel it could have been.




I have mixed emotions. I liked part 2 overall, but I really disliked part 1.

Once again, the first episode was rushed. The problem was the first 2 minutes. The show should not have started there at all. It would have been better if:

1) Episode 1 started with the Doctor Waking up, leaving the audience in the dark

2) The added a third episode, which I will call episode 0, that would explain the events that led up to episode 1.

Keep in mind that I HATE multi-episode stories, but I think they are just moving too fast with this -- I have absolutely no attachment to the characters at all.

`Le


----------



## Volaran (Sep 13, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Doctor Who has killed children before. In the episode with Sarah Jane the headmaster eats a little girl.




Off screen.  Much as with human vs human violence in Doctor Who, RTD seems to have some guidelines as to what can happen on-screen and what is implied off-screen.


----------



## sniffles (Sep 14, 2007)

TheLe said:
			
		

> I have mixed emotions. I liked part 2 overall, but I really disliked part 1.
> 
> Once again, the first episode was rushed. The problem was the first 2 minutes. The show should not have started there at all. It would have been better if:
> 
> ...



Aw, come on! You really wanted them to explain everything to you in advance? Where's the fun in that?   

I personally really enjoyed the writers just throwing the audience in at the "deep end" as it were, leaving us to find out later just why the Doctor was in that situation. I wouldn't want them to do that every story, but sometimes it's fun to me *not* to know everything that happened. I enjoy using my imagination to fill in the gaps.

These two episodes were based on a BBC novel published back in the '90s and featuring the 7th Doctor and his then-companion, who only appeared in the books. I read the book, _Human Nature_ by Paul Cornell, after seeing these two episodes and I'm really glad they didn't stick closely to the plot of the novel. The story would have been very slow and meandering and the villains weren't really threatening at all. Plus the relationship between the Doctor and Joan was really unconvincing in the book, but I enjoyed the way it developed in the televised story. 

I'm amazed that I just said I liked a filmization of a book better than I liked the book!


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Sep 15, 2007)

Tonight's episode, 'Blink', was pretty good. I didn't find it especially scary though. Somewhat disturbing, but not too terribly scary. Only one complaint: "You can't kill a rock." No, but you can smash a statue. All three of us who were watching said the same thing at the same time.


----------



## Felon (Sep 15, 2007)

Volaran said:
			
		

> Off screen.  Much as with human vs human violence in Doctor Who, RTD seems to have some guidelines as to what can happen on-screen and what is implied off-screen.




It might be worth considering for just a wee moment that electing not to depict children being ripped apart *on-screen* on public television in a family-oriented show is *not* just some personal peccadillo of RTD's.

Seriously, consider it.


----------



## Jamdin (Sep 15, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> Tonight's episode, 'Blink', was pretty good. I didn't find it especially scary though. Somewhat disturbing, but not too terribly scary. Only one complaint: "You can't kill a rock." No, but you can smash a statue. All three of us who were watching said the same thing at the same time.




My mother was saying "tip the statues over and smash them" while we were watching the episode.


----------



## Felon (Sep 15, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> Tonight's episode, 'Blink', was pretty good. I didn't find it especially scary though. Somewhat disturbing, but not too terribly scary. Only one complaint: "You can't kill a rock." No, but you can smash a statue. All three of us who were watching said the same thing at the same time.



You know, I think they did something with the score for the American version. The background music seemed to be missing something, and that was a huge part of Blink's fear factor.

You and your companions coul probably work out the answer to your complaint after giving it a little thought, but the quantum-locked weeping angels probably cannot simply be smashed like limestone. Quantum-locked tends to indicate frozen in time.

And it's not like their were sledgehammers laying around conveniently anyway. Even an ordinary rock isn't that easy to shatter.


----------



## Volaran (Sep 15, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> It might be worth considering for just a wee moment that electing not to depict children being ripped apart *on-screen* on public television in a family-oriented show is just some personal peccadillo of RTD's.
> 
> Seriously, consider it.




So noted.


----------



## Silver Moon (Sep 15, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> Tonight's episode, 'Blink', was pretty good. I didn't find it especially scary though. Somewhat disturbing, but not too terribly scary.



Can't agree there, my daughter and I found the living statues to be some of the creepiest villains seen to date.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 15, 2007)

Jamdin said:
			
		

> My mother was saying "tip the statues over and smash them" while we were watching the episode.




They were quantum-locked; frozen in time.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 15, 2007)

I loved "Blink."  Probably my favorite of the current series.

I did see one minor plot hole.  Once the light goes off in the cellar, those weeping angels won't be stuck anymore.


----------



## Richards (Sep 15, 2007)

...unless they have darkvision!  

Johnathan


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 15, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I loved "Blink."  Probably my favorite of the current series.



Me too, wonderful stuff.



> I did see one minor plot hole.  Once the light goes off in the cellar, those weeping angels won't be stuck anymore.



Yeah, I thought the same thing. Don't see any way around it, either.


----------



## Felon (Sep 19, 2007)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Yeah, I thought the same thing. Don't see any way around it, either.



It makes a fair amount of sense for them to be able to see in the dark. But phospheresent paint is another solution. 

I found bigger holes myself, like:
A) if earlier in the show the angels could fly across the street in the blink of an eye, then they're certainly fast enough to pounce on Sally in the basement once the light starts to flicker.
B) why is the light flickering anywa--if you turn off the power, the light goes off, so what does the angel do to just make the light flicker?

Btw, if you liked this episode, definitely check out Jekyll on BBC America. It's also penned by Stephen Moffat. Good stuff.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 19, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Btw, if you liked this episode, definitely check out Jekyll on BBC America. It's also penned by Stephen Moffat. Good stuff.




Moffat is good.  _Jekyll _ was good.  _Coupling_, too, of course.  He's touted as next in line as lead writer once Davies leaves _Doctor Who_.


----------



## Kesh (Sep 19, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> It makes a fair amount of sense for them to be able to see in the dark. But phospheresent paint is another solution.
> 
> I found bigger holes myself, like:
> A) if earlier in the show the angels could fly across the street in the blink of an eye, then they're certainly fast enough to pounce on Sally in the basement once the light starts to flicker.
> ...




The episode was a blast, but had _lots_ of plot holes.

1) "Duck." really. The Doctor had no basis of knowing _that_ was going to happen, by the episode's own logic.
2) The DVDs. I'm guessing the Doctor came back after the TARDIS was returned, just to record the DVDs. How he would know that he'd get the right person to record them onto the discs, though...
3) For that matter, "I'll die when the rain stops." Uh... okay. Maybe the Doctor went into the future and read the medical records + weather reports for that day, and told the guy when the DVDs got recorded.
4) "Look to your left." I doubt the transcript mentioned a scruffy guy writing all that stuff down just to her left. Hell, the Doctor wouldn't have known _where_ she was viewing it.
5) The Doctor had the transcript. Meaning, he knew what he was going to say before he said it. Yeah, time is "wibbly wobbly," but that one hurts my brain.
6) The Doctor's "trick" at the end was way too convenient. The chances of them ending up like that are crazy, and I would've preferred a more direct confrontation with them.

That said, I did enjoy the show, especially the ending.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Sep 19, 2007)

Kesh said:
			
		

> The episode was a blast, but had _lots_ of plot holes.
> 
> 1) "Duck." really. The Doctor had no basis of knowing _that_ was going to happen, by the episode's own logic.
> 2) The DVDs. I'm guessing the Doctor came back after the TARDIS was returned, just to record the DVDs. How he would know that he'd get the right person to record them onto the discs, though...
> ...





Most of this stuff I think was covered in her notes and photos that she gave him before he met her. I tend to think is was more time paradoxes than plot holes. 

1. The doctor knew what to write and where because it was in her notes.
2. The doctor knew just who to do it. It was the cop turned sound engineer that he met in 1969 when he was sent back. Again who and what DVDs were covered in her notes.
3. His death was in the notes and the doctor told him.
4. Again in the notes.
5. She provided the transcript along with her notes and photos.
6. Again notes and paradoxes.

The plot holes I saw were:

1. The Angels not seeing each other when the lights went out, but that could be explained with them seeing in the dark.
2. The variable speed at which they moved.
3. The biggest: if the Doctor has the notes before it happens and is able to set the tardis up to work on a DVD recall then why did he get zapped into the past by the Angels.


----------



## Capellan (Sep 19, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> 3. The biggest: if the Doctor has the notes before it happens and is able to set the tardis up to work on a DVD recall then why did he get zapped into the past by the Angels.




Because if he didn't get zapped into the past by the angels those events wouldn't happen and Sally wouldn't write the notes to give him so the Doctor wouldn't be warned and he'd be zapped into the past by the angels ...


----------



## Felon (Sep 20, 2007)

Capellan said:
			
		

> Because if he didn't get zapped into the past by the angels those events wouldn't happen and Sally wouldn't write the notes to give him so the Doctor wouldn't be warned and he'd be zapped into the past by the angels ...



Ah, the joys of time paradox. Even longtime viewers can get snagged by it.


----------



## Mkhaiwati (Sep 20, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I loved "Blink."  Probably my favorite of the current series.
> 
> I did see one minor plot hole.  Once the light goes off in the cellar, those weeping angels won't be stuck anymore.





I wasn't thinking of the light going off. I was thinking of somebody wandering down there. "Hey, look at these cool statues! I'll just take a couple for my garden at home!"

I was a cool episode.


----------



## Richards (Sep 20, 2007)

Here's a question:  Why did Nightingale get thrown back all the way to 1920, but the Doctor and Martha (and then later the cop who was trying to get a drink with Sparrow) get thrown back to the late 1960s?  Was it just randomness, or is there some method to it?

Johnathan


----------



## Huw (Sep 20, 2007)

Richards said:
			
		

> Here's a question:  Why did Nightingale get thrown back all the way to 1920, but the Doctor and Martha (and then later the cop who was trying to get a drink with Sparrow) get thrown back to the late 1960s?  Was it just randomness, or is there some method to it?
> 
> Johnathan




Each angel sends its victim back a fixed number of years. Nightingale was hit by one, the Doctor, Martha and the cop by another.


----------

