Re: Doctor Who [7]

by Forest Shepherd Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:33 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Apparently Day of the Doctor's cinema takings globally for that one day was 10million dollars!

It also did well in the US-

"Doctor Who took a stunning $4.8 million at the US box office on Monday, equivalent to 3 million pounds, making The Day of the Doctor the number two Movie of the day. "

This could be interesting, I am sure the people who count the beans at the BBC have all their bells ringing, not to mention are other big TV networks who might follow the model- could cinema ironically be saved by tv?

Interesting points!
I'm quite glad I was a part of it. The tickets were a bit pricey (I'm used to matinee pricing), but the idea of showing a television show as entertaining as Dr. Who on the big screen is incredibly appealing. Of course, there's also the personal appeal that the show has. Watching episodes cuddled up on the couch (or sofa, if you like) will always be the best way to enjoy Dr. Who for me.

by Bluebottle Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:32 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Blue if memory serves almost all of classic Who with the exception of City of Fear was shot in England, and mainly in the same few locations, a particular quarry was very popular...

Yeah, I think during the Baker era all episodes where filmed out of Television Center. Except one which was filmed in Birmingham.

Scotland is in the UK though, and BBCs Scotland wing must have had some sort of ability to facilitate the needed location shooting. Shrugging

I just think it was a bit of a missed opertunity that's all. It's still a terribly enjoyable story. Nod

by bungobaggins Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:28 pm

I watched Day of the Doctor yesterday, and once again I found myself utterly confused.

Spoiler:

I just...maybe these things were explained in the episode, if they were I definitely missed them. I don't get it anymore. I don't think I can keep watching this show, if I'm going to be confused by every episode.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:54 pm

maybe these things were explained in the episode, if they were I definitely missed them- Bungo

Yes they were.

Spoiler:

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:54 pm

bungobaggins wrote:
Spoiler:
.

I just...maybe these things were explained in the episode, if they were I definitely missed them. I don't get it anymore. I don't think I can keep watching this show, if I'm going to be confused by every episode.

Moffat makes it confusing to disguise the fact he has run out of ideas, its all smoke and mirrors, and as you said the last 8 years of backstory has now been totally destroyed, and the Doctor is now far less interesting a character. I thought it was boring, confusing and trying too hard to be clever and funny. It was crap and the sooner Moffat leaves the better it will be. If you watch the episodes RTD wrote you will see the higher quality of the writing, it doesnt need to be confusing to be interesting and most importantly, fun.

by malickfan Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:30 pm

If you watch the episodes RTD wrote you will see the higher quality of the writing, it doesn't need to be confusing to be interesting and most importantly, fun.

-Figgs.

Yeah, the End of Time, The Titanic episode and the farting aliens were great fun, thanks for reminding me.

Having started to watch Classic Who, I personally think Moffat and Davies are more or less as bad as each other...but at least Moffat actually treats Doctor Who as a Sci Fi show not a family friendly extension of Eastenders. I certainly preferred David Tennant to Smith (though I think Smith is a better Doctor), but I really don't see how him moping over Rose or the crappy Time War concept for three seasons is better writing on Davies Part.

Anyway Moffat cast Capaldi, so that pretty much cancels out any complaints on my part.

by bungobaggins Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:32 pm

Okay, this makes sense.

Spoiler:

I've read this several times, and I don't get it. I guess I don't understand how it works.

Spoiler:

I agree Figgs, on the aspect of fun, but I remember RTD having a pretty ham-fisted political moment that irked me the wrong way. I can't remember the episode, but it had Obama in it (and I think it had something to do with the election, or inauguration or something like that). I mean, I'd rather have Obama as prez than the other options we've had in the last two elections, but it just felt masturbatory (and particularly naive if you ask me, as no one should have expected Obama to live up to the promises he made, no matter how well intentioned. No one should have been so easily taken in by all of it). Why couldn't the president be a fictional person? I just rolled my eyes. Rolling Eyes

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:42 pm

I guess I don't understand how it works.- Bungo

This is usually how it works, 5 for example doesn't remember meeting 10, but 10 remembers being 5 meeting him once it happens for 10.
Same goes for the other specials where various versions of the Doctor meet future versions, the previous ones return to their own timelines and never seem to remember what happened.
Moffat in fact gave more explanation for it than Who ever has in the past, where you just sort of accept they dont seem to remember.

by Bluebottle Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:53 pm

RTDs excellent writing must be what made Eccleston exclaim "Who writes this shit!?" after reading the script of "The Unquiet Dead." Rolling Eyes

by Norc Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:58 pm

omg.. this is so true, i mean it makes so much sense
Doctor Who [7] - Page 31 Tumblr_mwtwobGHql1qanzb4o1_500

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:06 pm

I like that- however not sure he will be born in hope (though I hope so), given we have the Fall of the Eleventh and Trenzalore to come this xmas! Sofa

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:13 pm

malickfan wrote:If you watch the episodes RTD wrote you will see the higher quality of the writing, it doesn't need to be confusing to be interesting and most importantly, fun.

-Figgs.

Yeah, the End of Time, The Titanic episode and the farting aliens were great fun, thanks for reminding me.

Having started to watch Classic Who, I personally think Moffat and Davies are more or less as bad as each other...but at least Moffat actually treats Doctor Who as a Sci Fi show not a family friendly extension of Eastenders. I certainly preferred David Tennant to Smith (though I think Smith is a better Doctor), but I really don't see how him moping over Rose or the crappy Time War concept for three seasons is better writing on Davies Part.

Anyway Moffat cast Capaldi, so that pretty much cancels out any complaints on my part.

''For better and for worse, Davies was more interested in people than in science fiction. Moffat, on the other hand, is a geek. Let's clarify these terms. A major disservice done to SF/Fantasy is the way it is frequently confused with its duller brother, Geekery. SF/Fantasy is about the universe, the human race's responsibilities, morality, life, death, fear, wonder, (proper) science and different ways of seeing things. Geekery is about things which not only don't exist literally, but have no metaphorical value: bullshit science, people who come back to life after being killed off, different versions of time-travellers bumping into each other in different timelines and CGI "energy" emanating from people when the plot requires it. In a work of Geekery, the text itself is fetishised: it might not raise any questions, tax the intellect or interest anyone other than fans, but at least geeks can watch it, and discuss who River Song really is.
Few could argue convincingly that The Impossible Astronaut/The Day of the Moon or The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang have anything to stimulate the intellect, anything in the way of coherent, structured narrative, or a smidgeon of originality, but fans can enjoy debating who River Song is, whether the dead future Doctor can be saved, what caused the cracks in time, and why Amy's pregnancy is in a state of temporal flux.

These questions have nothing to do with drama. Let's not delude ourselves that we're talking about complexity here, either: admitting "I had no idea what was going on" carries an implication that this is because the scriptwriter was cleverer than than you, but a child's scribble may be hard to decode, but hardly complex. 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mulholland Drive, Memento and Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian are difficult because they're rich: there's more going on aesthetically than can be understood literally, hence the rewards gained by subsequent viewings or readings. The Big Bang, The Day of the Moon and The Wedding of River Song may be hard to follow, but they are also predictable, contrived, vacuous and full of plot holes.''

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:20 pm

Are those your own words and thoughts Mrs Figg or we to descend to scouring the net for blogs supporting our respective positions?

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:40 pm

are you taking my criticism of Moffat as a personal insult and getting nasty? you sound a lot like those idiots on TORn when I criticize PJ. heckling and bullying. Its a bit low.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:53 pm

No, I am happy to discuss your views on things Who so long as I am discussing your views- if you just post a long post of someone elses words and views there is little point responding to the points raised as the person whose views they are, are not here to talk to and respond with. Shrugging

by azriel Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:07 pm

Petty's sober & just warming up pale

that doesnt bode well. Wink

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:10 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:No, I am happy to discuss your views on things Who so long as I am discussing your views- if you just post a long post of someone elses words and views there is little point responding to the points raised as the person whose views they are, are not here to talk to and respond with.

they are my views. thats why I posted it. What I dont understand is the nastyness. You dont seem to be able to respond without trying to get some personal dig in, or taking things way too personally. I am discussing Dr Who, I NEVER refer to you in any way. I would appreciate it if you would stick to discussing the show and dont try to point score against me.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:13 pm

There was no nastiness intended on my part, you are seeing it where I intend none- merely that if instead of stating your views, in your own words, you just go and grab other peoples articles that you agree with, then those who dont agree do the same- the whole thing becomes a farcical debate where people just post opposing articles, written by people who arent here, at each other- thats not much of a debate.

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:25 pm

I dont intend to enter into debate with you about Dr Who. You dont have to respond to what I write and quite frankly its pleasanter for me if you dont, as you really dont get your attitude problem.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:31 pm

No I dont- all am I saying is that if you just post whole articles supporting your view, and I respond in the same way- all we are doing is posting other peoples words at each other. And that is not a debate at all- thats not an attitude, its not an attack on you, it got no personal meaning at all- just I dont see the point of posting conflicting articles at one another till the cows come home.

But I am quite happy to debate with anyone what it means for the character now things have changed, whether thats seems like a good idea or not or any other point you might wish to raise- but I dont see the point in debating with an article!

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:49 pm

ignore it then, Its probably better for both of us You dont have to go rushing to the attack everytime I dare to critisize Moffat, and I dont have to put up with belittling little digs about how 'silly' my opinion is. Its a win win situation. Very Happy

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:54 pm

I dont understand why you take it as a personal attack- other people have been just as critical and I responded to their posts with counter arguments and they did not appear to think I was having a go at them personally- and quite rightly as I am not, nor am I having a go at you on a personal level at all.

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:42 pm

whatever. Just ignore my posts about Dr Who and we will both have more pleasant time. Other people are just as critical but they dont try to belittle me just because I do have that opinion. for example, I will say something like ''Moffat is crap'', and the Others will say something like ''no he isnt, RTD is crap''.
But you say ''thats a stupid thing to say blah blah blah''. See the difference? You make it personal, you try to shoot the messenger rather than the message.
It doesnt make it very pleasant for me and it just degenerates into a boring slanging match. SO IGNORE MY POSTS:

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:51 pm

I will respond so long as you continue to try to paint me as a big evil bully who has it in for you.
You keep claiming I call your opinions silly when in fact I called one of your assertions about the Doctor which was untrue risible, namely that he cant be the Doctor without guilt, when he was the Doctor without guilt for 43 years of the shows 50.
I have never used the word about any of your other comments, and I never used it of your opinion at all.
You just keep saying I did, but it doesn't make it true.

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:14 pm

whatever. dont see any point in continuing this.