TheRPGSite

The Lounge => Media and Inspiration => Topic started by: Ghost Whistler on September 01, 2012, 01:48:13 PM

Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on September 01, 2012, 01:48:13 PM
The last season (both parts) was total pants with a nonsense metaplot.

The new season (5 eps) begins tonight.

The writeup for this episode actually looks pretty solid: the doctor's oldest foe (!) sends him on a mission to a place even the Daleks are afraid of!

I'm intrigued. Hopefully Steven Moffat has got his mojo back.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on September 01, 2012, 05:34:02 PM
I actually rather enjoyed last season
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: brettmb on September 01, 2012, 06:14:02 PM
Tired of Dr. Who after the past few seasons. If I wanted to watch a corny soap opera, I'd watch General Hospital. Not that earlier seasons were great. Too many repetitive themes, sloppy writing, and stupid spectacle.

I'm hoping this new season pays off, but I'm not optimistic. Moffat seems to be best at one-offs.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: brettmb on September 03, 2012, 05:07:05 PM
OK. Wasn't bad and refreshed the series a bit. Still sick of the domestic issues -- I can't look at Amy and Rory anymore.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Tahmoh on September 03, 2012, 07:11:51 PM
Give it till episode 5 brett and i have a feeling you wont have to deal with them again :)

Also theres technically more than 5 episodes in this season they just chose to split it again so we get 5 then the xmas ep(new companion joins) then next year the back 8 follwed by a ton of anniversary stuff and a full season in the fall(along side a movie length special on anniversary night).
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: VectorSigma on September 03, 2012, 08:12:52 PM
I didn't care for 'Asylum', it felt like more of last season to me.

Full credit to the twist, of course, but other than that, meh.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on September 03, 2012, 08:36:37 PM
Just watched it on demand and thought it was pretty good. But then i enjoyed last season, so maybe my tastes are out of sync with most on the subject.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on September 05, 2012, 03:16:58 AM
i got more mileage watching Jenna Louise Coleman's legs.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: One Horse Town on September 05, 2012, 06:38:27 AM
In 10 years time, the Dr and his companions are all going to be toddlers.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: brettmb on September 05, 2012, 06:44:18 AM
Well, they already talk like toddlers half the time. I cringe when I hear nonsense like "timey wimey." Ugh. I used to think that Horns of Nimon was one of the most cringe-worthy episodes. Now, I have lots to choose from.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Koltar on September 06, 2012, 11:15:09 PM
Quote from: brettmb;579471OK. Wasn't bad and refreshed the series a bit. Still sick of the domestic issues -- I can't look at Amy and Rory anymore.

I can still look at them.

 She's smart and very easy on the eye and If I was gay I'd snuggle with Rory.


- Ed C.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: deleted user on September 09, 2012, 01:57:33 AM
Beyond the title, Dinosaurs on a Spaceship was terrible.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on September 09, 2012, 06:40:47 AM
Matt Smith's doctor is the worst yet. I've had enough of him completely.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on September 09, 2012, 08:47:55 AM
I enjoyed it. Rather like Matt Smith.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: brettmb on September 09, 2012, 02:34:43 PM
Story wasn't so bad, but the execution. I agree with Ghost Whistler -- Matt Smith rubs me the wrong way. And was Rory's dad Peterson from Red Dwarf?
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: One Horse Town on September 09, 2012, 09:35:34 PM
I think i'm totally alone in thinking that Christopher Ecclestone's Doctor is the best of the revamp...
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: brettmb on September 09, 2012, 09:40:01 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;581397I think i'm totally alone in thinking that Christopher Ecclestone's Doctor is the best of the revamp...
Actually, I'm with you.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Koltar on September 09, 2012, 11:22:37 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;581397I think i'm totally alone in thinking that Christopher Ecclestone's Doctor is the best of the revamp...

You're not 'alone' - my store manager has the same opinion.

I'm pretty much 'okay' with all three of the contemporary era versions of the Doctor. Tho, the David Tennant version got to be a bit too heavy with 'angsty/companion' in love with him stuff...

The Matt Smith episosdes have felt a bit more like a romp through space again.

- Ed C.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on September 10, 2012, 07:48:41 AM
Quote from: One Horse Town;581397I think i'm totally alone in thinking that Christopher Ecclestone's Doctor is the best of the revamp...

A good friend of mine who is a huge dr who fan agrees with you.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: beeber on September 10, 2012, 10:05:59 AM
Quote from: One Horse Town;581397I think i'm totally alone in thinking that Christopher Ecclestone's Doctor is the best of the revamp...

i'm also coming around to that camp.  everything seems so hectic/frenetic/over-the-top with a lot of the relaunch episodes.  old who i could watch for a couple of hours (and did). . . new who, only in occasional 1 ep. doses.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on September 11, 2012, 04:56:58 AM
I would liek to have seen more Ecclescake. Tennant was ok until it got all maudlin and stupid but he's a good actor. I'm not really sure Matt Smith is. But the show is hopelessly infantilised now. There's no going back.
That last episode had some decent writing but also some gaping contrivances: oh the ship needs two pilots genetically connected. Well that's handy! Oh, he shot the dinosaur (the things he's come aboard to steal and profit from, er...) and we feel sad. Oh the robots have camp voices (well, PC and Mac, at least :))

If only the beeb would show Tom BAker's run again, or at least stop charging fucktastically stupid prices for the dvd's.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: RPGPundit on September 12, 2012, 12:14:04 AM
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;579511Also theres technically more than 5 episodes in this season they just chose to split it again so we get 5 then the xmas ep(new companion joins) then next year the back 8 follwed by a ton of anniversary stuff and a full season in the fall(along side a movie length special on anniversary night).

Is that all confirmed? Or just speculation?

RPGPundit
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: RPGPundit on September 12, 2012, 12:15:18 AM
I've already posted my detailed opinions on my blog, but for the record here, so far both episodes of this season were a big hit from my point of view. They were great.

RPGPundit
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ladybird on September 13, 2012, 06:49:56 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;581833Is that all confirmed? Or just speculation?

RPGPundit

The split in this season is (Five episodes, special, eight episodes), but I don't think anything official has been said about next year's season yet.

I think Ecclestone played a great Doctor, with just the right level of survivor's guilt. Tenant did well, until the entire god-complex thing, which... went a bit far. Honestly, I like all of them, but I probably wouldn't watch the later Tenant stuff again.

Smith actually uses time travel extensively in the storyline, which I love. It's bloody confusing though.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: beeber on September 13, 2012, 07:46:21 PM
Quote from: Ladybird;582282The split in this season is (Five episodes, special, eight episodes), but I don't think anything official has been said about next year's season yet.

I think Ecclestone played a great Doctor, with just the right level of survivor's guilt. Tenant did well, until the entire god-complex thing, which... went a bit far. Honestly, I like all of them, but I probably wouldn't watch the later Tenant stuff again.

Smith actually uses time travel extensively in the storyline, which I love. It's bloody confusing though.

agreed.  i like the river song stuff, too.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: beejazz on September 14, 2012, 12:35:29 AM
I agree with a lot on this thread. Loved Eccleston, Tennant was a good actor, Smith is... okay. I think the new seasons' blame/credit lie with Moffat. Not as much history, more messing with scifi and time travel weirdness, different character dynamics (the domestic stuff), and it sometimes seems like he doesn't know what to make of the Doctor himself.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: tellius on September 14, 2012, 05:45:40 AM
Quote from: One Horse Town;581397I think i'm totally alone in thinking that Christopher Ecclestone's Doctor is the best of the revamp...

+1 to this as well from me. I totally dug his portrayal, but for the record I don't mind Matt Smith, possibly because he exceeded my lowered expectations.

I would have to almost agree with you so far on this season to Pundy. The first one ep was solid, but the second ep was just plain old fun.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on September 14, 2012, 07:15:32 AM
Evil man shoots kindly old triceratops.

Hmmmn.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: RPGPundit on September 14, 2012, 08:28:28 PM
Yeah, I had yet to hear anything about what they're actually doing for the 50th anniversary, I don't think anything's been announced yet.  The obvious and proper choice (and keeping with tradition) would be a multiple-doctors story, but its hard to say how many past doctors would actually be both viable and available; Tennant might do it but it might also be too soon for him; Ecclestone wants nothing to do with the series; McGann did say he was interested but hardly anyone knows him outside of the serious fandom; and the old-series doctors that are still alive are all relics now (and in some cases, shambling behemoths, like poor Colin Baker).

RPGPundit
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on September 15, 2012, 03:20:57 PM
That was absolutely fucking atrocious.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: VectorSigma on September 16, 2012, 01:50:34 PM
Concur.

"Dinosaurs on a Spaceship" at least had gonzo-romp going for it.

"A Town Called Mercy" was awful.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ladybird on September 22, 2012, 01:58:49 PM
I finally got to see Mercy yesterday. Wasn't great, wasn't awful, just another solid episode. The twists and the way the Doctors contrasted each other was interesting, as was seeing 11 in hot anger (As opposed to the cold anger in Dinosaurs).

I liked it. Try as he might, our Doctor will never be able to get away from having spent millennia doing very horrible things, even if they were for a good reason.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on September 23, 2012, 05:57:04 AM
Power iof Three was better, even if this entire 'season' has foreshadowed the demise of the Ponds in a very heavy handed fashion, and that the narration in this episode made it sound like an advert for a razor.

Hopefully then it will be the weeping angels offing the two worst companions i've ever known, and we can get rid of the insufferable Amy Pond and her ass of a husband. Sad to see Mark Williams wasted as his dad and I'm not looking forward to Matt Smith's chin as he acts his way throuygh the inevitable aftermath. Ugh.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on September 23, 2012, 07:21:21 AM
Quote from: Ladybird;584513I finally got to see Mercy yesterday. Wasn't great, wasn't awful, just another solid episode. The twists and the way the Doctors contrasted each other was interesting, as was seeing 11 in hot anger (As opposed to the cold anger in Dinosaurs).

I liked it. Try as he might, our Doctor will never be able to get away from having spent millennia doing very horrible things, even if they were for a good reason.

Just managed to catch this one last night. The cyborg bore an uncanny resemblance to Kryton from Red Dwarf.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: VectorSigma on September 23, 2012, 11:09:20 AM
I thought 'Power of Three' had some interesting stuff in it...but not much.  A lot of build-up for...well, nothing, really.

I remain unimpressed by this "Fall season".
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Aos on September 23, 2012, 02:21:14 PM
I don't dislike all of new Who ( I can no longer watch #10) but the more of it I see, the more I appreciate the old show. A reduction in  both romantic angst and season long arcs combined with an increase in optimism would do the show a world of good.
In my opinion the new show has  to date failed to produce a truly classic episode such as say, The Dialeks, Tomb of The Cybermen, Planet of the Dialkes The Invasion, Arc in Space, and a couple dozen others.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ladybird on September 23, 2012, 03:32:41 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;584700Just managed to catch this one last night. The cyborg bore an uncanny resemblance to Kryton from Red Dwarf.

Adorable Girlfriend thought the preview looked like Westworld, so we watched that; still a great film. It struck me just how similar the overall plot is to Jurassic Park, but I think Westworld is the far more watchable movie.

Anyway, Who, I really like the "11 is on Earth for a bit and bored out of his mind" episodes. I can forgive the silly monster sideplots because, well, they're not important; the focus in those episodes is on the Doctor and the Companions just being people for a while, and the monsters are almost just there out of contractual obligation.

Regarding next week, I like the Ponds, but I'd happily never see the Angels again. They've suffered from Villain Decay worse than the Daleks ever did, and they've only been in a handful of episodes.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on September 23, 2012, 03:48:07 PM
I agree about the angels.

Personally I think the Time War was a mistake.

I'd like to have the Timelords within the modern canon (properly of course).
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ladybird on September 23, 2012, 05:30:57 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;584806I agree about the angels.

If I was in charge of Who, and ever wanted to re-use the Angels, it would be as random background props, maybe having one do the off-camera movement trick - but sparingly, once a series at most.

And certainly never, ever, having them move on-camera, because more than anything, that killed their creepiness; before that, the viewer was an active participant in the story, and the Angels worked in the same way as in the show. Having them move on-camera... well, now they're just another gribbly horror monster.

But if I was writing Who, it would be a non-linear mess, so that'll never happen. Also, Cyberman companion. Srsli.

QuotePersonally I think the Time War was a mistake.

I'd like to have the Timelords within the modern canon (properly of course).

I'm not sure the new series would have the time to do them justice, to be honest. Although I'd love to see some of the other people the Doctor has inspired; it's a big universe, time travel tech isn't too uncommon, someone else has to be walking the timelines, right? Have him bump into one of their stories, or vice-versa.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on September 29, 2012, 04:33:19 PM
So, Many. Plotholes.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: VectorSigma on September 30, 2012, 11:26:22 AM
Awful, awful, awful.  Didn't care for the Angels ep at all.

Angel over-use?  Check.  River Song present?  Check?

That's two strikes against for me before you even get into the not-making-any-sense bits.

That said, there was some cleverness at the beginning and the end - I liked the idea of the book, and I thought the last scene in the graveyard was pretty cool.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on September 30, 2012, 11:40:02 AM
I thought it was great. But river song never bothered me much and felt like an appropriate episode for the angels to me. Also i really enjoyed the noir feal and agree the book concept was pretty cool.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: John Morrow on September 30, 2012, 12:07:26 PM
Quote from: VectorSigma;587626Awful, awful, awful.

It's always a bad sign when an episode feels like bad fan fiction.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ladybird on September 30, 2012, 03:26:20 PM
Quote from: VectorSigma;587626Awful, awful, awful.  Didn't care for the Angels ep at all.

It broke an Angel rule during the intro - the two in the corridor would have been able to see each other (A rule which was the entire resolution of Blink, so pretty fundamental to the concept).

The episode was okay, and very definitive in that they are gone and never coming back. It's a shame there wasn't a spare Raggedy Man appearance for the Doctor to see Amelia one last time, but eh.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: beejazz on September 30, 2012, 04:08:28 PM
The book said River's wrist was broken. That didn't mean that her wrist had to be broken. All it meant was that someone had to lie when the book was written.

People observed written words, so only the written words should have been fixed in time.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on September 30, 2012, 04:12:37 PM
Quote from: Ladybird;587858It broke an Angel rule during the intro - the two in the corridor would have been able to see each other (A rule which was the entire resolution of Blink, so pretty fundamental to the concept).

That rule was broken consistently and entirely throughout. There was almost never a point where an angel couldn't be seen by something else, not only that but even so the protagonists were forever turning their backs on them, including the giant statue of libertangel.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on September 30, 2012, 04:14:28 PM
Quote from: beejazz;587873The book said River's wrist was broken. That didn't mean that her wrist had to be broken. All it meant was that someone had to lie when the book was written.

People observed written words, so only the written words should have been fixed in time.
The book also could have said "hey doc, meet us tuesday in San Francisco and pick us up there."

Why on earth they couldn't have been rescued is beyond me since he knew exactly where they were and when and had already used the past to send a message into that point to River via the medium of pottery.

Oh Stephen Moffat, how the mighty have fallen. Stick to Sherlock, that was worth watching at least. This isn't.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ladybird on September 30, 2012, 04:18:49 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;587876That rule was broken consistently and entirely throughout. There was almost never a point where an angel couldn't be seen by something else, not only that but even so the protagonists were forever turning their backs on them, including the giant statue of libertangel.

I figured it was only worth mentioning the first, although I refuse to believe there is ever a time in NY where nobody is looking at the statue.

If you say a monster is scary because of rules x, y and z, you need to follow the rules. Else it's just scary because you said so. That's what has happened to the Angels, and why anything Angel-related past them moving on screen was bad.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: John Morrow on October 03, 2012, 11:26:31 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;587876That rule was broken consistently and entirely throughout. There was almost never a point where an angel couldn't be seen by something else, not only that but even so the protagonists were forever turning their backs on them, including the giant statue of libertangel.

Not to mention that the Statue of Liberty isn't made of stone.  It's hollow and made of copper.  Yeah, maybe I'm being charitable comparing it to fanfic.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on October 04, 2012, 03:56:22 AM
weren't the anges supposed to only turn to stone when they were seen. Not that they possess statues that happen to be present and then move around like bizarre chess pieces.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ladybird on October 04, 2012, 08:31:53 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;589155weren't the anges supposed to only turn to stone when they were seen. Not that they possess statues that happen to be present and then move around like bizarre chess pieces.

It somewhat implies that, one day in the Whoniverse, the Statue of Liberty either just appeared on Liberty Island (And nobody really noticed) or it had been there for goddess-knows-how-long (And nobody cared enough to investigate).

Also, the image of an Angel is itself an Angel. Quite a well-known statue, is Liberty. If you've ever been to NY, or seen anything set in NY... I'd guess that at least 90% of the western world has an image of the statue somewhere in their house.

Them not always taking the generic angel form was neat, though. It was always somewhat implied, but this time it was outright stated.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on October 04, 2012, 09:41:03 AM
According to Blink they are 'quantum locked' they turn to stone as soon as they are seen. It's a defence mechanism because 'you can't kill stone'. Although you can smash it up.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ladybird on October 04, 2012, 01:56:21 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;589201According to Blink they are 'quantum locked' they turn to stone as soon as they are seen. It's a defence mechanism because 'you can't kill stone'. Although you can smash it up.

You can do a lot of very nasty things to "stone".
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: John Morrow on October 04, 2012, 08:54:14 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;589155weren't the anges supposed to only turn to stone when they were seen. Not that they possess statues that happen to be present and then move around like bizarre chess pieces.

Yes, and my point is that the Statue of Liberty is not stone.  It's copper over a frame.  Seriously, the more I think about it, the more terrible the whole episode becomes.  I'm guessing the audience isn't supposed to think about it too much because everyone involved in producing the episode certainly didn't bother to think it through.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on October 05, 2012, 08:24:30 AM
That's the problem with Moffat. He's absolutely sacrificed details for cool. The dialogue is rubbish, as it's trying to be cool (you can see similar traits in Blink), trying to sound fun/hip/interesting. Story has gone out the window; last season was a mess. The silence thing never got resolved. River Song is still a pain in the ass. It's just...meh.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ladybird on October 05, 2012, 04:46:35 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;589418That's the problem with Moffat. He's absolutely sacrificed details for cool. The dialogue is rubbish, as it's trying to be cool (you can see similar traits in Blink), trying to sound fun/hip/interesting. Story has gone out the window; last season was a mess. The silence thing never got resolved. River Song is still a pain in the ass. It's just...meh.

I'm holding out hope that The Silence plot will get picked up again at a later point, when he's free of building up to getting rid of Amy and Rory. Pity about that third Pond, eh? I think we're stuck with her. We've seen her die properly, so they can just use her as much as they like (Until the actress gets too old).

I'm pretty sure I'll be disappointed re: the Silence, though.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Bradford C. Walker on October 05, 2012, 10:26:47 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;589418That's the problem with Moffat. He's absolutely sacrificed details for cool. The dialogue is rubbish, as it's trying to be cool (you can see similar traits in Blink), trying to sound fun/hip/interesting. Story has gone out the window; last season was a mess. The silence thing never got resolved. River Song is still a pain in the ass. It's just...meh.
Moffat publicly disavowed the need to maintain continuity between episodes, so a lot of this shit should be put at his feet.  Speaking of feet, they need to be put to the fire until he gets off his high horse and starts paying due respect to continuity (and the consistency it brings) once more.  He needs an editor, one that doesn't by his bullshit- one with the power (and the BBC can make it so) to tell him "No."
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Kaiu Keiichi on October 25, 2012, 10:10:05 AM
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;589561Moffat publicly disavowed the need to maintain continuity between episodes, so a lot of this shit should be put at his feet.  Speaking of feet, they need to be put to the fire until he gets off his high horse and starts paying due respect to continuity (and the consistency it brings) once more.  He needs an editor, one that doesn't by his bullshit- one with the power (and the BBC can make it so) to tell him "No."

The BBC only cares about one thing - ratings.  As long as Moffat continues to bring in the ratings they could care less what he does with the show.

Also, even at it's best, Dr Who was never a continuity-heavy show.  But, Russell T Davies was responsible for a lot of this wahoo-over the top stuff.  And while I adore Alex Kingston, the River Song character does get on my nerves.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ladybird on October 25, 2012, 01:33:19 PM
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;589561consistency

Lols. Who continuity was always made up as it went along, by what the writers wanted to use in a particular storyline. The only thing each oldWho serial / newWho episode is consistent with, is itself; everything else was fluid, bought back when required and ignored if not.

River Song is still shit, though.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: jadrax on December 26, 2012, 10:27:56 AM
Really enjoyed the Christmas special, especially seeing the links into older continuity.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on December 26, 2012, 12:47:55 PM
Quote from: jadrax;611518Really enjoyed the Christmas special, especially seeing the links into older continuity.

Quite liked it as well. It was slow at first but well worth it in the end.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 26, 2012, 02:05:29 PM
Even though the plot was a bit mary poppins, it was the best Matt Smith (if we must have him as the doctor) episode. Moffat's dialogue is atrocious at times, but i would much rather have Strax than this ridiculous Oswin girl.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on December 26, 2012, 02:22:00 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;611571Even though the plot was a bit mary poppins, it was the best Matt Smith (if we must have him as the doctor) episode. Moffat's dialogue is atrocious at times, but i would much rather have Strax than this ridiculous Oswin girl.

I thought Oswin was the best part. Seems like a promising companion.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 26, 2012, 04:18:33 PM
Depends how it resolves, or indeed if.

She isn't as annoying as the Ponds, which is a definite plus, but she's still another spunky young girl character. Not really very original.

Sontaran butler trumps that any day of the week.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on December 26, 2012, 06:01:35 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;611613Depends how it resolves, or indeed if.

She isn't as annoying as the Ponds, which is a definite plus, but she's still another spunky young girl character. Not really very original.

Sontaran butler trumps that any day of the week.

I enjoyed the sontaran butler as a comedic foil but "militant goofball" is hardly more original than "spunky girl". Liked them both, thought Oswin stole the show. And think the premise of her character is quite interesting.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: danbuter on December 26, 2012, 11:16:26 PM
I liked Snowmen, though it wasn't perfect. The Sontaran was great. So was the return of the lizardwoman detective. I like Oswin. She's much better than Rory and Amy (who really should have been gone a season ago. They overstayed their welcome).
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: James Gillen on December 27, 2012, 03:00:19 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;611571Moffat's dialogue is atrocious at times, but i would much rather have Strax than this ridiculous Oswin girl.

"...did you want me to get the Memory Worm?"
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 27, 2012, 04:37:15 AM
It's pretty obvious that the dna of new who contains spunky girl as a sidekick. The first mal companion they added ended up fucked over and got no sympathy. The next was openly gay/bi while Rory was a doormat.
Title: [Dr. Who] Who's Back
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on January 15, 2013, 10:00:07 AM
Quote from: danbuter;611696I liked Snowmen, though it wasn't perfect. The Sontaran was great. So was the return of the lizardwoman detective. I like Oswin. She's much better than Rory and Amy (who really should have been gone a season ago. They overstayed their welcome).

Any theories on who Oswin really is?