Re: Doctor Who [9]

by David H Tue Dec 30, 2014 11:26 pm

Do I see a new debate shaping up?! Very Happy

[Wish I could join in, but I haven't even been able to see the 50th Anniversary yet Sad

]

by Mrs Figg Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:59 pm

well this could run and run Very Happy

by David H Wed Dec 31, 2014 5:06 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:well this could run and run

A marathon not a sprint then! :carrot:

by Forest Shepherd Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:32 pm

I just finished The Android Invasion.
The Doctor sure has some impressive whoop-ass skills: he knocked that Krall over backwards in a flip and a half!
I didn't think the episode was all that great, but my favourite part was when the real Doctor walked in past the Android security.
"Hold it there Doctor!"
"Don't be a fool, I'm not the real Doctor; he's out there somewhere still!"
"Oh, right, sorry Doctor."

Then the Android Doctor walks in, and
"Hold it there Doctor!"
"Don't be a fool, I'm not the real..."
*They shoot him three times in the chest, which has no effect on his android anatomy.*
The Android Doctor, with an air of indignity:
"Satisfied!?"
Laughing

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:07 pm

I think you believe Clara is a control freak because Moffat tells you she is. Theres no evidence to suggest she is any more a control freak than any other assistant or anyone on the entire show. She has never displayed controlfreakery. This is something that the writers have pushed as being an issue without any evidence to back it up, its just random.- Figg

I dont even understand how you can say this.

You on the one hand say there is no evidence of it, then in the very next breath accuse Mofat of pushing it on the viewer- it cant be both.

I see her controlling nature and her need to compartmentalize her life into controllable chunks from her very first appearance in Asylum.
Arguable Asylum is the ultimate version of her compartmentalizing, as there she has done that to all her remaining humanity.
In the Victorian era version she has done the same again with her life splitting off the two parts of it- barmaid, and nanny, and playing them out as two roles exclusive of each other, right down to using a different accent.

The very fact she feels compelled to tailor each one with a different aspect all points to her control needs.

Even her attempts to be 'Souffle Girl' and make her mums souffle is an aspect of her need for some control- she keeps trying over and over, determined to get it just right and rejecting all attempts that dont quite meet up to her standard.
There are also countless amounts of times where she tells the Doctor what to do, or how to act- trying to keep control of him.
Her entire relationship with Danny is based on her need to keep her life under control and to keep the different parts of it separate from one another.
Her relationship issues with 12 are based on their mutual control freakery clashing.

Its been central to the entire last season- and was highlighted continually in different aspects- from her actions and deeds to her self confessed words at Trenzalore about being a control freak- for 2 and a half series now.

I just don't get how you can say its not been set up through her character.

Unrelated but a couple of vids I liked-

by Mrs Figg Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:25 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I think you believe Clara is a control freak because Moffat tells you she is. Theres no evidence to suggest she is any more a control freak than any other assistant or anyone on the entire show. She has never displayed controlfreakery. This is something that the writers have pushed as being an issue without any evidence to back it up, its just random.- Figg

I dont even understand how you can say this.

You on the one hand say there is no evidence of it, then in the very next breath accuse Mofat of pushing it on the viewer- it cant be both.

that is not a contradiction.. Moffat gives the Doctor various soundbites where he calls her a controlfreak, but that doesn't make it real. what is it they say? show don't tell. well I feel I have been told she is a controlfreak without much evidence.

I see her controlling nature and her need to compartmentalize her life into controllable chunks from her very first appearance in Asylum.
Arguable Asylum is the ultimate version of her compartmentalizing, as there she has done that to all her remaining humanity.
In the Victorian era version she has done the same again with her life splitting off the two parts of it- barmaid, and nanny, and playing them out as two roles exclusive of each other, right down to using a different accent.

The very fact she feels compelled to tailor each one with a different aspect all points to her control needs.

whats controlfreak about that? most people compartmentalize their lives quite happily. work vs home etc. anyway I think the nanny vs the barmaid thing was more her wanting escapism from the constraints of Victorian life. she was ready for an adventure.

Even her attempts to be 'Souffle Girl' and make her mums souffle is an aspect of her need for some control- she keeps trying over and over, determined to get it just right and rejecting all attempts that dont quite meet up to her standard.
There are also countless amounts of times where she tells the Doctor what to do, or how to act- trying to keep control of him.

I think that's part of her deal with him. she has after all given her life for him and she seems to need payback more than the other assistants. its like she uses emotional blackmail a lot to make him do what she wants. I don't find her a particularly pleasant character for that reason. theres something cold and calculated about her which the other assistants didn't have. I also think they try to play up the bossy Northern thing which gets mistranslated as controlfreakery.

Her entire relationship with Danny is based on her need to keep her life under control and to keep the different parts of it separate from one another.
Her relationship issues with 12 are based on their mutual control freakery clashing.

nah I think she just wants her cake and to eat it. on one hand adventure with the Doctor and safety with Danny. I think this is more to do with the fragmentation of her life into thousands of pieces, maybe she has some latent memory of her being split into infinite versions of herself

Its been central to the entire last season- and was highlighted continually in different aspects- from her actions and deeds to her self confessed words at Trenzalore about being a control freak- for 2 and a half series now.

I just don't get how you can say its not been set up through her character.

by malickfan Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:36 pm

Haven't got round to watching the Xmas Ep yet, but as I sense an argument brewing I think I'll leave this here Laughing

https://twitter.com/lastjellybaby/status/523480605133393920

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:42 pm

Moffat gives the Doctor various soundbites where he calls her a controlfreak, but that doesn't make it real.- Figg

If that were all there was to it you would have a point, but the Doctor's, and her own, confirmation of it are only the capping stones on everything we have seen about her which indicates her need to have control.
We see her struggling to maintain that control over her life many times.

'whats controlfreak about that?'

You don't think the need to so extremely compartmentalize her life, way beyond the norm, and even go to the extent of adopting a different persona and accent doesn't display some control issues?
Or her writing everything done on tons of post it notes so she can see clearly all the different components of her life, particularly those she feels she has lost control of, in order to regain that control, isn't control freakery?
And there are loads of examples of it.

'its like she uses emotional blackmail a lot to make him do what she wants. '

You will have to site examples of where she does this, as I cant think of any.
The most she ever tries to blackmail him in anyway is over the death of Danny, and thats about her losing control of the only aspect of her life she felt she still had control.

'I also think they try to play up the bossy Northern thing which gets mistranslated as controlfreakery.'

I think they are two aspects of the same thing as far as she is concerned- she is bossy as part of her attempts to keep control and to mask and protect herself when she feels she is losing control.

On Trenzalore in the truth field she describes herself as - "Bubbly personality masking bossy control freak."

"I think this is more to do with the fragmentation of her life into thousands of pieces, maybe she has some latent memory of her being split into infinite versions of herself"- Figg

I half agree with this. Clara that got copied and splintered through time is preDanny relationship however so cannot have been influenced by it at all.
Her pattern of compartmentalizing therefore must already be a dominant feature of her personality for it to be replicated by all the copies.
Her later relationship with Danny is just the manifestation of it in her life- just as the split life was for Victorian Clara, or maintaining her humanity inside her mutated Dalek form in Asylum was.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:49 pm

Haven't got round to watching the Xmas Ep yet, but as I sense an argument brewing- Malick

Its a good solid xmas episode Id say. Balances everything very well for xmas day family viewing.

And yeah that sounds like a typical Sherwin rant- hard not to see a bit of bitterness over not getting the gig to revive the show. Glad he didn't was his idea the 3r Doctor should be stuck on earth all the time without a working TARDIS.
He dd invent UNIT but mainly as an action based guns and explosions addition to the premise. And it also meant the Doctor, the ultimate non authoritarian was now working for the government and unable to travel in Space and Time- which is kind of the whole point.
None of which says Doctor Who to me and which contribute to the 3rd Doctor being my least personal favourite era. So I am very glad he has nothing to do with the modern show.

by malickfan Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:56 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

Its a good solid xmas episode Id say.

That isn't saying much to me though, I can't remember enjoying any of the Xmas Eps that much.

[quoteAnd it also meant the Doctor, the ultimate non authoritarian was now working for the government and unable to travel in Space and Time- which is kind of the whole point.
None of which says Doctor Who to me and which contribute to the 3rd Doctor being my least personal favourite era. So I am very glad he has nothing to do with the modern show.][/quote]

Yeah, I'm still on the Last Season of Pertwee (got distracted by other stuff) he's good and many of the stories are enjoyable...but it all feels kinda flat and generic to me after the experimentation of the B+W era.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:03 pm

I can't remember enjoying any of the Xmas Eps that much.- Malick

Well I rate A Christmas Carol as the best of the xmas eps and End of Time as one of the worst (though the giant stompy Cyberking one is close) if thats any help in working it out.

This one has the benefit of being very Who in a lot respects- scary monsters- base under siege premise (and has base under siege specialist, Doctor No2's, son in it for added geekiness), some Moffat doublebluffs, oh and Santa Claus, two elves and Rudolph.

I thought it was well written, handled the tonal shifts really well, and had good secondary characters, Shona in particular I really liked.

by malickfan Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:08 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I can't remember enjoying any of the Xmas Eps that much.- Malick

Well I rate A Christmas Carol as the best of the xmas eps and End of Time as one of the worst (though the giant stompy Cyberking one is close) if thats any help in working it out.

This one has the benefit of being very Who in a lot respects- scary monsters- base under siege premise (and has base under siege specialist, Doctor No2's, son in it for added geekiness), some Moffat doublebluffs, oh and Santa Claus, two elves and Rudolph.

I thought it was well written, handled the tonal shifts really well, and had good secondary characters, Shona in particular I really liked.

Didn't see Christmas Carol, End of Time was utter sh*te, I did enjoy The Next Doctor when I watched it (I don't think I've seen it since) a silly over the top romp that isn't too complicated (just what you want when half drunk and tired on Christmas), though the Cyberking stuff was awful and RYD Shmaltz is kinda grinding to me.

I'll probably buy the box set once the 10th Anniversary rolls around, and do a marathorn at some point hopefully it will come down in price...

by Mrs Figg Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:29 pm

'The End of Time' was brilliant. great acting from all concerned, specially Tennant and Cribbins. that's a real Doctor Who episode, it went downhill from there.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:04 pm

There are some great moments- and you are right about Cribbans- his performance is the best thing in it- but the plot is awful, doesn't make any sense, has hand wave resolutions, its all hugely self indulgent, overly operatic, angsty and schmaltzy and it has the worse, most out of character regeneration line ever.

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:20 am

the plot is awful, doesn't make any sense, has hand wave resolutions, its all hugely self indulgent, overly operatic, angsty and schmaltzy and it has the worse, most out of character regeneration line ever. Petty

that pretty much sums up Moffats entire back catalogue from Smith to Capaldi. plot holes, over complicated pseuds corner timey wimey increasingly stale and derivative and yes, schmaltzy.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:42 am

Even if you dont like Moffat his stuff is not unexplained, everything is set up, everything has an explanation- I challenge you to give me a single example of a story point in the Moffat run which doesn't have a plot reason or explanation given within the show. I bet you cant.

There is nothing in the Moffat era to even begin to compare with the cheapness of a literal wave of a Time Lord hand to resolve an entire plot line (using a device never mentioned previously in the plot, with no bearing on anything in the story, and which only comes into the plot point 1 of a second before being used to resolve the entire thing and then its gone again never to be mentioned again- thats great plot construction that is! At least with Moffat he puts all the clues in the actual episodes and works them into the plot so you can actually work it out beforehand, or afterwards go back and see where it was all set up and have 'aha so that was what that meant' moments- something you cant do with RTD's out of a hat plot resolutions).
Even Kill the Moon has better physics and science than RTD with Gallifrey, a planet several times the side of earth appearing in the sky closer than the moon and having no effect- or an entire planet being towed across space with no more effect than a minor earth tremble.
Its amazing what Moffat gets dragged over the coals for that RTD by some gets a free pass for.

You can complain Moffat is over timey-whimey- but within the rules of the show it still makes narrative sense. Nor is there anything as indulgent so far in the Moffat era as the last fifteen minutes of End of Time- which is just RTD saying goodbye to his era in a self wankathon.
And nobody in Who history does schmaltz as much as RTD did.

-------

http://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/viewtopic.forum?t=1129