Re: Doctor Who [12]

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:45 pm

Never got the fascination with her either- pointless character in a pointless episode.

As to last nights- I gave this one a rewatch today and it seems to me not to be about dustmonsters ect at all! Its a bit like Fight Club in that first time through it seems to be one thing, then rewatched in light of the ending and its about something else.
I still dont think its a particularly great episode mind you, but at least I think I have some sense out of it.

We are watching footage created by, and put together by the bad guys.
What are the bad guys? Nothing to do with the Moprpeus chambers- as he says at the end, the Mark 2's are just the same as always. All the chambers have to do with it is that where bad guy has been firing his signal into- now though they want to do it without having to have people in the chamber- to get the signal into them by another means.
What creates the creatures is a signal that affects the brain. Fire the signal into folk and they will change.
The lost footage is a creation- the attacks on the crew, the switching off the engines to create drama and excitement, basically all the usual horror trope elements are creations of the monsters in order to create a dramatic and frightening lost footage film, which they are shooting.
And into which they have embedded the signal that converts humans into Sandmen.
The reason the Doctor says it doesn't make sense is that it doesn't. What they all think is going on is not what is going on at all.
The entire purpose of the monsters is to create a scary episode of Doctor Who basically, one that folk will watch and be infected from as a result because the signal is embedded in the footage.

So my initially pondering if it was cleverer than I thought at first or just as messy the answer seems to be both- it is cleverer than I thought, but its still pretty damn messy even when you know whats going on.

by Bluebottle Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:48 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:ouch! Hollywood news don't like it at all.

(spoilers)
http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/2015/11/14/doctor-who-9-9-blog-sleep-no-more-contains-spoilers/

It’ll be interesting to see even the staunchest of Doctor Who defenders explain this one.

Yeah..

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:50 pm

Just go read the Radio Times 5 out 5 stars review for that.

by Mrs Figg Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:03 pm

Nagual wrote:
Mrs Figg wrote: nice try.

it was utter shite, and most reviewers agree with me. I could list them if you need 'proof' but it would take all night and my pussies are in need of de-fleaing.

Soapy water. Drown the buggers.

Oi you! that sombero wont save you from the wrath of a mad cat lady. Suspect

Doctor Who [12] - Page 10 Hermione-Egyptians-1433746868_zpsmasu7qys

by Mrs Figg Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:20 pm

Bluebottle wrote:
Mrs Figg wrote:ouch! Hollywood news don't like it at all.

(spoilers)
http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/2015/11/14/doctor-who-9-9-blog-sleep-no-more-contains-spoilers/

It’ll be interesting to see even the staunchest of Doctor Who defenders explain this one.

Yeah..

yeah!

that episode is proof if anyone needed it of Moffats cronies phoning in garbage. I could list all the tropes that episode cobbled together.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Nov 15, 2015 5:21 pm

I could list all the tropes that episode cobbled together.- Figg

Which would demonstrate only that you missed the point.
Not that's entirely your fault for once as I think the episode is a bit of a mess and trying to be too clever for its own good.
But all the tropes are there but serving subverted purposes- so the shaky headcam view ect turns out not to be that at all but the perspective of parts of the dust monsters in the air. The lost footage itself is not lost at all, its deliberate, created by the bad guys to act as a way to spread to others ect.
You cant subvert the tropes of the genre unless you include them to be subverted.

oh and Gattiss is a RTD crony not a Moffat crony as far as Who is concerned- it was RTD gave him his Who gig way back in series 1 of NuWho and brought him back year on year.

by azriel Sun Nov 15, 2015 5:39 pm

When Nagual said........"soapy water, drown the buggers"........do you think he meant the fleas ? my mum use to do it that way Smile

by Mrs Figg Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:20 pm

azriel wrote:When Nagual said........"soapy water, drown the buggers"........do you think he meant the fleas ? my mum use to do it that way

hmmm dunno, he is a friend of Petty so its anyones guess. Laughing

but anyway my pussies flea from soapy water.

by azriel Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:22 pm

Boom Boom Tsschh

by Bluebottle Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:25 pm

Crun: Er, now, now, now [mutters], what next? Now um, [reads] Mister Patrick Murphy, of no fixed abodee, sevenpence-ha'penny behind in his rent. Mrs....
Bannister: [off] Henry, er...
Crun: [writing stops] What, what, what?
Bannister: [off] Oh, [mutters, lip smacking]. Henreee!
Crun: Ah, drat that modern melody-woman.
Bannister: [off] Yim-bom-biddle... [silly singing, pauses]. Pfwo-o-ow!
Crun: What do you, what? What is it Min?
Bannister: [off] That cat wants to go out.
Crun: What makes you think that, Min?
Bannister: [off] He's just put his hat and coat on. Ooooh...
Crun: Dear oh dear. Why do we have to have a loony moggie that insists on wearing a hat and coat? Why can't he be like other cats and just wear a knitted pullover, I tell you? Now, where was I..
Bannister: [off, interrupts] Because the dog's wearing the pullover, you know that.
Crun: Oooh...
Bannister: [off] It's his turn to have the pullover, you know that.
Crun and Bannister: [muttered exchanges]
Crun: Now, back to my writing...
FX: [Pen scratching paper.]
Crun: Mrs. Spon, eleven and fourpence.
Bannister: [off] Henry! Henreeee!
Crun: What is it now, Minnie?
Bannister: [off] Can't you hear, Henry, there's no-one knocking at the door.
Crun: Then I won't answer it, Min. You never know who it might not be.
Bannister: [off] Aaaaaaah! But it might not be somebody we know.
Crun: Oh, then I'd better see who isn't there.
(The rent collectors)

by Mrs Figg Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:27 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I could list all the tropes that episode cobbled together.- Figg

But all the tropes are there but serving subverted purposes- so the shaky headcam view ect turns out not to be that at all but the perspective of parts of the dust monsters in the air. The lost footage itself is not lost at all, its deliberate, created by the bad guys to act as a way to spread to others ect.
You cant subvert the tropes of the genre unless you include them to be subverted.

.

so deliberately crap? those tropes aren't subverted, they are rehashed, it wouldn't be so bad if the rehashing was any good, I mean cumon! dust bogey monsters? at least make it interesting.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:39 pm

But they arent dust booger monsters- at least not as presented- the Morpheus machines dont make them at all as he admits at the end. Its the signal that affects and rewrites the brain that creates them and then they grew over and consume the host whilst in the sleep pod. Its reprogrammed dead human cells. Hence dust.
And he has worked out a way to get the same signal directly into people through the eyes- hence contriving the 'lost footage' so when its a found folk will watch it- they will put it on the news and whatever the future equivalent of youtube is- and everyone gets infected. Go to sleep get consumed.
Its a subversion because its not lost footage at all, nothing that happens in it happens for a real reason- like him switching the engines off- its just to make a dramatic moment and some excitement to keep folk watching the footage. Or the helmet cams- only they don't have any. Its all sleight of hand.
I still dont think its a great episode, but not a bad one either, its not Love and Monsters bad (another episode that tried to do something radical with the format and didn't work out) and it seems written to be watched twice- bit like Fight Club, its a different story second time you watch it (and for me it was markedly better experience second time through than first).

As to Nagual- you don't question the Nagual!- you just have to put up with him! Mad

Really liked this- good work on the rendering- I reckon a survival horror Doctor Who game could be very effective indeed.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:19 pm

Face the Raven official trailer- will this be Clara's departure episode or are we being led up the garden path?

by Mrs Figg Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:07 pm

this is one episode I am looking forward to. Rigsy and Clarexit double whammy. Razz

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:55 pm

Just for you Figg-

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Nov 16, 2015 1:41 pm

AI for Sleep No more was 78.

The first time ever in Moffat era its being below 80, you have to go back to RTD era for sub 80 scores (Love and Monsters getting an AI of 76- as did Rose and End of the World).

Not entirely surprising, an episode you have to watch twice to understand (unless you are very perceptive from the off) is not likely to score highly with the casual audience. And an episode which is totally different in style from the usual format- folk don't like change (as the old Who joke goes-'How many Doctor Who fans does it take to change a light bulb? Answer- CHANGE?!! Mad

).
That and whilst I enjoyed it a lot more on a second viewing its still not for me more than a decent tale (I voted it a 6 on Gallifrey Base, my lowest score in a good while-'just a cut above average' is the description of a 6 and that was mainly for the bravery to try something very different even if it didn't quite work).

by Forest Shepherd Mon Nov 16, 2015 3:41 pm

Oooh la!

There's dissension in the ranks, methinks!
My curiousity is piqued, to say the least: I can't wait till i catch you all up!

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Nov 16, 2015 3:48 pm

Overall I would say this has been one of the best series since probably series 5 and 4 before it- and its not like those two series didn't have a few rough spots here and there too. But the standard this year I think has been very good.
This was just an experimental episode that didn't quite pull it off, as Love and Monsters was, though its nowhere near that bad and doesn't have weird out of place oral sex jokes in it which is definitely a plus.
But yeah so far this episode is this series In The Forest of the Night- brave attempt at doing things differently but doesn't mange to pull it off successfully.

by Mrs Figg Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:20 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:AI for Sleep No more was 78.

The first time ever in Moffat era its being below 80, you have to go back to RTD era for sub 80 scores (Love and Monsters getting an AI of 76- as did Rose and End of the World).

Not entirely surprising, an episode you have to watch twice to understand (unless you are very perceptive from the off) is not likely to score highly with the casual audience. And an episode which is totally different in style from the usual format- folk don't like change (as the old Who joke goes-'How many Doctor Who fans does it take to change a light bulb? Answer- CHANGE?!! ).
That and whilst I enjoyed it a lot more on a second viewing its still not for me more than a decent tale (I voted it a 6 on Gallifrey Base, my lowest score in a good while-'just a cut above average' is the description of a 6 and that was mainly for the bravery to try something very different even if it didn't quite work).

nice try. The casual audience? it doesn't take a genius to know when something is pants.

by Mrs Figg Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:22 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Overall I would say this has been one of the best series since probably series 5 and 4 before it- and its not like those two series didn't have a few rough spots here and there too. But the standard this year I think has been very good.
This was just an experimental episode that didn't quite pull it off, as Love and Monsters was, though its nowhere near that bad and doesn't have weird out of place oral sex jokes in it which is definitely a plus.
But yeah so far this episode is this series In The Forest of the Night- brave attempt at doing things differently but doesn't mange to pull it off successfully.

up to date there has only been one half decent episode the entire season. I am hoping next Saturdays makes it up to two episodes.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:37 pm

In your opinion- general consensus taken from Ai's overall this series, viewer polls, and critical reception is that this is a very good series indeed overall.

My own opinion is that has been a very solid series indeed with great performances and that the stories have greatly benefited by being mainly two-parters.
I have very much enjoyed the return of the weekly cliffhanger to Who, as well as the extra time it gives to flesh out secondary characters and develop ideas.
Its also been a very innovative series, not just in its structuring but in its subject matter and delivery.

Spoiler:

I for one am all for them experimenting.

But hey Figg you should be happy with Capaldi at least- he wants the next companion to be more like Rose (well I doubt he means totally self centred and bitchy) but he wants a companion that's 'earthy', his word, and with a working class background.

by Mrs Figg Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:24 pm

anyway I am hoping for Rigsy as the new companion. I reckon Capaldi would be better served with another guy rather than a girl.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:36 pm

I am hoping for Rigsy as the new companion- Figg

I don't think he is going to be based on stuff Moffat has said and what we know about future episodes from official sources.

On the subject of the companion Moffat recently said that a new companion was even more important for the audience than a new Doctor. As its really the companions journey we go on beginning to end. And that (with his showrunner hat on) a new companion therefore is always a new starting point, and an opportunity to get new viewers who didn't want to jump into the middle of stories. For that reason he says a new companion shouldn't be someone we already know, as then they already have a back-story and stuff you either have to re-explain for new viewers or ignore. So best to start fresh.

Secondly we know after this weeks episode

Spoiler:

This makes it seem very likely to me that we won't meet the new companion until the start of series 10. And gives the media department plenty of time to make use of whoever is announced as new companion in-between series.

I could be wrong of course, but that's the feeling I'm getting from what's been said and what's coming up.

by Forest Shepherd Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:50 am

Interesting.

by Mrs Figg Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:16 am

If they brought Rigsy back its because he was popular with the punters, and its time the Doctor had a young black male as a companion they are usually either muggers or drug dealers in tv shows, it would be nice to see a nice ordinary sensitive boy with an artistic personality under the Doctors wing instead of the usual 'feisty' *yawn* female.