|
|
Post by Nyder on Dec 30, 2020 13:04:27 GMT
What did you think of it?
Please do not vote or post opinions until after the episode has been broadcast.
|
|
|
|
Post by ninjaconor on Jan 1, 2021 20:13:11 GMT
It was pretty good. The overall story was good, but it felt like it lacked a proper flow or something. I think it needed a bit more of a central theme to cling to. Also, the Trump parody guy already feels very dated and didn't add anything.
I also can't believe they gave Jack the Dodo Chaplet treatment!
|
|
|
|
Post by markrand on Jan 1, 2021 23:19:57 GMT
BBC America will present it tonight. I'll watch it this weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by olegrand on Jan 2, 2021 12:57:29 GMT
What? A spare TARDIS? Where did it come from? Have I missed something or is this the worst deus ex machina ever?[/spoilers]
|
|
misterharry
Dominus Tempus 
Dalek Caan's Lovechild
Posts: 3,288
Favourite Doctors: Second, Third, Fourth, Eleventh, Thirteenth
Traits: Empathic, Face in the Crowd, Insatiable Curiosity, Stubborn, Phobia (Heights), Unadventurous
|
Post by misterharry on Jan 2, 2021 13:52:34 GMT
What? A spare TARDIS? Where did it come from? Have I missed something or is this the worst deus ex machina ever?[/spoilers]
Wasn't that the renegade Doctor's TARDIS from the last series?
EDIT: Actually no, I got that wrong. The spare TARDIS was revealed in The Timeless Children - it's the one Graham, Ryan and Yaz were returned to Earth in. |
|
|
|
Post by olegrand on Jan 2, 2021 14:04:35 GMT
What? A spare TARDIS? Where did it come from? Have I missed something or is this the worst deus ex machina ever?[/spoilers]
Wasn't that the renegade Doctor's TARDIS from the last series?
EDIT: Actually no, I got that wrong. The spare TARDIS was revealed in The Timeless Children - it's the one Graham, Ryan and Yaz were returned to Earth in. Well I DID miss something, then... guess I was too stunned by the whole "Timeless Child" nonsense... |
|
|
|
Post by olegrand on Jan 2, 2021 17:24:51 GMT
I found it insipid and uninspiring...
Jack's comeback was enjoyable - until he sort of faded away from the story instead of exiting it with grace. Another wasted opportunity...
Chris Noth's pseudo-Trump felt indeed like a dated parody - the actor did what he could but the character itself didn't really bring anything to the story aside from the usual "evil greedy businessman" cliché (and was, of course, allied to a garden-variety "evil politician").
The "emoting" scenes felt forced - with some annoying contradictions (the Doctor : "I don't know who I am", "I was imprisoned from being me" - notice the cheap shot here - and "I'm the Doctor"). Also, Graham & Ryan want to "get on" with normality once again but they also want to investigate weird events just like old times etc etc.
Daleks... well... it feels like the current showrunner thinks that bringing back Daleks will make everybody happy. I don't think it's enough, though. DW also needs great stories. I mean simply compare this (and last year's special) to ANY Xmas special from the RTD era and, well... no contest here.
The references to the whole "Timeless Child" plot also felt forced, like some kind of justification, as if the writers really felt they had to hammer it home. What did it bring to the story? Nothing. In fact, the gleeful destruction of the character's continuity is a completely negative innovation: it does not CREATE anything, it just removes things from the character and its associated mythos, trying to delude the viewers into thinking this will create "mystery" or "novelty" but no, it doesn't. And it won't.
The only interesting element was, I think, Yas' attitude and her split with Ryan & Graham. M. Gip really gave her character a welcome intensity.
Last but not least - and something which has been bugging me for quite some time - the whole "my fam" thing. I really find it jarring that the first female Doctor has to be equated with some kind of motherly figure, as if a woman could not be identified with another role. This rather predictable archaism kind of defeats the whole "gender-bending" stunt... Much ado about nothing,eh ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jan 2, 2021 21:51:56 GMT
I thought it was entertaining but didn't reach the excitement and thrills that previous Xmas specials have.
I'm not sure about where Chibnall is going with the Timeless Child arc but the positives in this means that the opportunity and scope for role-playing a pre-Hartnell Doctor of our own making working for 'The Division' is *huge*. Given that The Doctor was there at the start of Gallifrey's Time Lord origins, there have been, what, billions of years since then? |
|
misterharry
Dominus Tempus
Dalek Caan's Lovechild
Posts: 3,288
Favourite Doctors: Second, Third, Fourth, Eleventh, Thirteenth
Traits: Empathic, Face in the Crowd, Insatiable Curiosity, Stubborn, Phobia (Heights), Unadventurous
|
Post by misterharry on Jan 3, 2021 10:52:08 GMT
I'm not sure about where Chibnall is going with the Timeless Child arc but the positives in this means that the opportunity and scope for role-playing a pre-Hartnell Doctor of our own making working for 'The Division' is *huge*. Given that The Doctor was there at the start of Gallifrey's Time Lord origins, there have been, what, billions of years since then? Ten million years, at least according to the Sixth Doctor at his trial. But that still leaves a huge scope. As for this episode, I enjoyed it. I was glad to see the return of Jack Robertson, who seemed like a loose end at the end of Arachnids in the UK. Hopefully he'll make another reappearance down the line. And perhaps we'll see the return of Art Malik's villain from The Ghost Monument in the next series, as he also lacked closure? Also pleased to see the reappearance of the bronze Daleks, as Robertson's looked visually lightweight, albeit appropriate for the story. The ending was suitably emotional. I'm a little concerned about what might be in store for Yaz. It seems clear that she loves the Doctor - probably not in a romantic way (but who knows?), more likely in an obsessive way. My main misgiving was actually the post-credits reveal for the next series. I'm not a fan of John Bishop as a comedian and haven't seen him in any acting role (though it looks like he has been an actor). But I had similar feelings when Catherine Tate was announced for The Runaway Bride, and she turned out to be a triumph. So I'll wait and see. |
|
misterharry
Dominus Tempus
Dalek Caan's Lovechild
Posts: 3,288
Favourite Doctors: Second, Third, Fourth, Eleventh, Thirteenth
Traits: Empathic, Face in the Crowd, Insatiable Curiosity, Stubborn, Phobia (Heights), Unadventurous
|
Post by misterharry on Jan 3, 2021 10:59:16 GMT
Last but not least - and something which has been bugging me for quite some time - the whole "my fam" thing. I really find it jarring that the first female Doctor has to be equated with some kind of motherly figure, as if a woman could not be identified with another role. This rather predictable archaism kind of defeats the whole "gender-bending" stunt... Much ado about nothing,eh ? I don't get any "motherly" connotations from the Doctor's use of "fam". In real life, it's more usually used to refer to close friends, and that's the vibe I get from this. |
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jan 3, 2021 12:47:04 GMT
My main misgiving was actually the post-credits reveal for the next series.
For a single moment of true horror I thought it was going to read: Introducing xxxx xxxxxx as...
(Pause)
The Doctor.
|
|
|
|
Post by olegrand on Jan 3, 2021 14:55:54 GMT
Last but not least - and something which has been bugging me for quite some time - the whole "my fam" thing. I really find it jarring that the first female Doctor has to be equated with some kind of motherly figure, as if a woman could not be identified with another role. This rather predictable archaism kind of defeats the whole "gender-bending" stunt... Much ado about nothing,eh ? I don't get any "motherly" connotations from the Doctor's use of "fam". In real life, it's more usually used to refer to close friends, and that's the vibe I get from this. Perhaps... but we are not talking about real life here or about a real family anyway, so everything is symbolic and words (especially recurring ones) often do take a stronger meaning in fiction - so the point remains utterly debatable IMHO. "Fam" does derive from "family" and the 13th Doctor has, so far, often been depicted as a (kooky) "mother" - in the same way that the Fifth Doctor was sometimes put in a (worried) "dad" role. Anyway, the whole "fam" thing was always one of my gripes with that companion group - the lack of any real conflict within its group dynamics, making them far more cumbersome (in narrative terms) than previously-seen triads of companions (ie the Susan / Ian / Barbara lineup had a lot of internal conflicts, thanks to the character of Susan, and the so-called "crowded TARDIS" period was made more interesting by abrasive companions like Tegan or Turlogh... Hopefully next season will give Yaz more room to develop as a character (something which she has already begun) - and the whole Timeless Child / the Doctor-is-not-really-a-Time-Lord absurdity will be quietly forgotten (yes, I know, it's only wishful thinking  but hey, one is allowed to dream, right?). |
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jan 3, 2021 17:39:52 GMT
'The Timeless Children Doesn't Break Doctor Who'
Quite a compelling argument. Those mutterings during the 7th Doctor's tenure that he was 'more than just a Time Lord' and the Morbius mind-bending duel faces were pre-Hartnell Doctors are established Canon pointing to the fact The Doctor is more than he seems.
I'd also add that perhaps the clock given to 'Brendan' by The Agency, upon retirement, is in fact the Ormulu clock the First Doctor had in the TARDIS.
|
|
|
|
Post by olegrand on Jan 3, 2021 18:46:41 GMT
Sorry, I think it does. I've heard all the arguments before and no amount of desperate (and, may I say, ultra-selective) retcon is going to convince me. I could list at least a dozen arguments showing how it completely jeopardizes the continuity of the show (and not just "classic old who"). Also, regarding the "Cartmell Plan" for the 7th Doctor, we both know that this would have been quite different (and a far better 'game-changer'). Anyway we already had this conversation some months ago so why not accept the fact that some of us will "never get over it" (or will always think that this was one of the Worst Ideas Ever in 55+ years of DW mythos) ? I'd also like to point out that this decision does NOT create anything new or interesting - so far, it's been an entirely 'negative' change-for-the-sake-of-change... That being said, it's not the first time (and probably not the last) that Whovians are divided over some continuity issue, showrunning choice etc. We'll survive this!  |
|
misterharry
Dominus Tempus
Dalek Caan's Lovechild
Posts: 3,288
Favourite Doctors: Second, Third, Fourth, Eleventh, Thirteenth
Traits: Empathic, Face in the Crowd, Insatiable Curiosity, Stubborn, Phobia (Heights), Unadventurous
|
Post by misterharry on Jan 3, 2021 20:44:30 GMT
Anyway we already had this conversation some months ago so why not accept the fact that some of us will "never get over it" (or will always think that this was one of the Worst Ideas Ever in 55+ years of DW mythos) ? It was you who raised the Timeless Child again further upthread in your reply to my earlier post. If you don't want people to talk about it, why bring it up again unnecessarily? Just to wind those of us who like the idea up? |
|
|
|
Post by olegrand on Jan 3, 2021 20:57:11 GMT
Anyway we already had this conversation some months ago so why not accept the fact that some of us will "never get over it" (or will always think that this was one of the Worst Ideas Ever in 55+ years of DW mythos) ? It was you who raised the Timeless Child again further upthread in your reply to my earlier post. If you don't want people to talk about it, why bring it up again unnecessarily? Just to wind those of us who like the idea up? Aw, sorry. No, that wasn't my intention at all. But you're right - I was the one who raised the off-topic subject. My apologies. |
|
misterharry
Dominus Tempus
Dalek Caan's Lovechild
Posts: 3,288
Favourite Doctors: Second, Third, Fourth, Eleventh, Thirteenth
Traits: Empathic, Face in the Crowd, Insatiable Curiosity, Stubborn, Phobia (Heights), Unadventurous
|
Post by misterharry on Jan 3, 2021 21:12:58 GMT
It was you who raised the Timeless Child again further upthread in your reply to my earlier post. If you don't want people to talk about it, why bring it up again unnecessarily? Just to wind those of us who like the idea up? Aw, sorry. No, that wasn't my intention at all. But you're right - I was the one who raised the off-topic subject. My apologies. Thanks - sorry for coming across snappy. |
|
|
|
Post by olegrand on Jan 3, 2021 21:34:29 GMT
Aw, sorry. No, that wasn't my intention at all. But you're right - I was the one who raised the off-topic subject. My apologies. Thanks - sorry for coming across snappy. No problem - let's say you snapped me out of it...  |
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jan 3, 2021 22:35:49 GMT
It's really quite bizarre.
Over the years I've seen fans denying that those pre-Hartnell faces in the Morbius mind-bender were The Doctor's but Morbius' own faces, even though producer Phillip Hinchcliffe stated that it was his intention those were the Doctor's faces in earlier incarnations before Hartnell.
It is fact that there is a plot seed from the classic series, right there. No tenuous connection but a direct link to an earlier narrative.
I'm not on any side of either argument, but it's a fact and it's worth remembering. Chibnall picked it up and ran with it and the fallout is incredible.
I'm just glad we have a show. Period.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jan 4, 2021 1:11:47 GMT
It is fact that there is a plot seed from the classic series, right there. And it is also fact that the series later explicitly and strongly decided against that idea. I find it bizarre that people can't just accept that different producers film their own, contradictory versions of the show and have to invent twisted rationalizations for every contradiction. "But it's fun," they'll say in their defense, but I point to the unending arguments over the Timeless Child as strong evidence that people aren't having fun; they're just desperate to "save canon." I found "Revolution of the Daleks" to be fairly good, mostly for the very reasons that others in this thread didn't like it. The relationships between the main cast have never been more than one-dimensional, with the occasional out-of-place heart-to-heart filling the spaces between action scenes just because something needed to go there. In this episode, the conversations the characters have with each other actually figure into the story in a meaningful way. The Doctor's mopiness has a purpose this time, rather than just generic "make her mysterious to the others even though longtime fans know all about her." Ryan's and Graham's reasons for leaving the TARDIS make sense and are well expressed. Since Yaz is sticking around, the writers have obviously realized that they need to give her a personality, and now she has one, at least a little. Her change of character was quite obvious. The Daleks were fine, a bit too easily unleashed and a bit too easily gotten rid of. I was glad Robertson's newfangled Daleks haven't replaced the old-style Daleks. I had no problem with Robertson in the episode: he played the part of comic relief, which Chibnall-era Doctor Who really needs more of, and he did manage step up the peril a notch by revealing the presence of the Doctor — though surely the Daleks should have expected her to be there, given that they were invading Earth. I was surprised by the ending twist and laughed. The weakest part of the episode was Jack. He was mostly just there for the fanservice, and he laid that on thick. He had to explain his backstory for viewers who hadn't been watching for twelve seasons, but in the end that backstory doesn't really matter to this story, so there was really no point except the fanservice. It's too bad, because we know John Barrowman can play the character well. His best scene was probably his conversation with Yaz. As always, it was too dark, visually speaking, with way too much white noise through every scene, to the point that sometimes I have to listen very carefully to make out what the characters are saying through the noise. If this is what all current science-fiction television looks and sounds like, I feel justified in not trying it out. And once again the Doctor is told about the Timeless Child stuff: what does it matter? She was already given this message in the last episode of series 12, and now Ryan gives it to her again. And once again, I ask the same question: if the Doctor is supposed to conclude that what happened in her past doesn't matter because she's still the Doctor, then why did Chibnall do it at all, except for the cheap thrill of discovery and to make his indelible mark on Doctor Who? Because so far that's been the sole in-story effect of completely violating the show's continuity: getting the Doctor to question who she is, a question that has gone nowhere and done nothing but make the Doctor feel sorry for herself. If Chibnall has no long-term purpose to the Timeless Child, it's just really bad writing. |
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jan 4, 2021 10:13:33 GMT
It is fact that there is a plot seed from the classic series, right there. And it is also fact that the series later explicitly and strongly decided against that idea. Where? I can't recall that.
Off-topic - Jodie is quitting.
|
|
|
|
Post by greyhame on Jan 4, 2021 15:48:50 GMT
Well, having girded my loins to watch the New Year's Day episode, I can honestly say that I was pleasantly surprised. I absolutely loathed all of the 'Timeless Child' crap, but this episode was quite good - indeed, far better than I was expecting.
I did think that it was a shame that, having apparently lost everything to do with Gallifrey again, the Doctor then destroyed the 'spare' Tardis. They could have had a chameleon-arched Time Lord find it, say the Rani or the Monk?
Also, when Graham and Ryan left, it would have been good for the Doctor to have given them the names/addresses of some people who could help them - Kate, Luke, Torchwood, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jan 4, 2021 17:38:19 GMT
Where? I can't recall that. The earliest I can think of is "The Five Doctors," where Peter Davison's Doctor says he is the fourth regeneration. "Goodness me, so there are five of me now!" Since the idea of amnesia-hidden additional incarnations hadn't been invented yet, that's pretty explicit. No incarnations of the Doctor earlier than what appeared in "The Five Doctors." Before that, it was mathematically deducible from "Mawdryn Undead," where the number of the Doctor's remaining regenerations adds up. They may have mentioned the incarnation number of the Doctor in this episode; I'm not sure. But certainly this was the episode that set the hard limit of twelve regenerations that was adhered to ever since. (The Time Lords giving the Doctor more regenerations in the 50th anniversary special is the exception that proves the rule.) |
|
|
|
Post by senko on Jan 5, 2021 3:32:12 GMT
I'm not going to comment on the episode (took a brief look after it aired and just not interested in watching it so I've nothing to say on it as I may have the wrong impression. We may need a wont watch it option in future polls). However offset as it were I can't help but wonder if its a good idea to be pushing the Yaz/Doctor ship when your actor's leaving and we've seen previously how different versions impact the dynamic you have between doctor and companion. Shame we lost Graham though he was enjoyable to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nyder on Jan 5, 2021 8:33:55 GMT
I'm not going to comment on the episode (took a brief look after it aired and just not interested in watching it so I've nothing to say on it as I may have the wrong impression. We may need a wont watch it option in future polls). However offset as it were I can't help but wonder if its a good idea to be pushing the Yaz/Doctor ship when your actor's leaving and we've seen previously how different versions impact the dynamic you have between doctor and companion. Shame we lost Graham though he was enjoyable to watch. A "won't watch" option is not going to be added to future polls. They are for opinions from those who view the episodes. If you haven't and won't watch an episode you should not vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jan 5, 2021 10:43:06 GMT
I'm sure that in the years to come, nostalgic fans will lavish as much forgiveness and affection on the Chibnall era as they did on the era of John Nathan-Turner.
|
|
Rassilon
Administrator
Grand Administrator
Posts: 762 
|
Post by Rassilon on Jan 5, 2021 11:39:50 GMT
We may need a wont watch it option in future polls There is already an option for those who Won't Watch - simply don't vote.
Please let's try to be more positive during these difficult times.
|
|
|
|
Post by olegrand on Jan 5, 2021 20:04:45 GMT
How about "I loathed it"? There are multiple degrees of good but only one of "bad" - the quite tame "I didn't really enjoy it". Wouldn't it make sense to add a more 'negative' option? Not for the sake of negativity but simply to allow for a wider array of opinions - this is, after all, an opinion poll. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by markrand on Jan 5, 2021 20:18:57 GMT
How about "I loathed it"? There are multiple degrees of good but only one of "bad" - the quite tame "I didn't really enjoy it". Wouldn't it make sense to add a more 'negative' option? Not for the sake of negativity but simply to allow for a wider array of opinions - this is, after all, an opinion poll. What do you think? You're right. There should be more negative options. |
|
|
|
Post by senko on Jan 5, 2021 22:35:54 GMT
I watched enough and looked into the rest to know that I wouldn't enjoy watching it at all but fine I'll take my negative opinions of the show elsewhere.
|
|
but hey, one is allowed to dream, right?). 
