Doctor Who Season 11 [ Spoilers ]

Wibbs · 17-12-2018 8:09pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Talking of the guardian.

Indeed. I'd agree with much of what the one dissenting voice said. That lack of what he called psychopathy. That hint of something much deeper behind the eyes. There's zero depth to Whittaker. No sense of intelligence. No sense of experience. All gurning and zaniness, with her comfort blanket screwdriver out all the time to move what plot there is along. She feels like just another one of the companions gang. When she does give any sort of mini speech it's hide behind the couch alright, from embarrassment for her. TBH even watching just three in their entirety and dipping into the rest to varying degrees I found it hard going when she was on screen. Now we can blame the scripts as many seem to be doing, including her fervent supporters, but any of the previous incumbents could have got something more from the page.

To be fair my overriding vibe when watching this season is that it has been much more aimed at little kids. Like I said more Cbeebees than early evening wider family viewing. Famous Five drive Timmy the Tardis. There's little of the adult nods within it, which one tends to get with the best kids shows and flics. It's all obvious exposition with morality tales dropped in. In some ways it is a return to the very early classic Who in that regard. Which is fine by the by, but it's a big departure from the rest of the new Who.

And yer wan from the Time Ladies blog.. Was she watching the same programme? "Episodes have been beautifully crafted, fun, rewatchable and thought-provoking" and then notes that it wasn't exactly great in the crafted score. One does suspect so long as the Doc was of the lady persuasion she'd be effusive.

The bit about "intersecting identities". One couldn't get more Guardian.

Me. Earlier. Finding Guardian hacks in the wild.

Yes I might make a good Dalek.

RayCun · 17-12-2018 8:36pm

You're really hitting the stereotypes hard. Women can be lead characters, as long as they are like Ripley. Or Sarah Connors.

I think Whittaker has been given less to work with this season, but I'm open to seeing where she can go with the character, beyond "can be threatening".

Stark · 17-12-2018 10:00pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm sorry but Jayneway was over authoritative, gung-ho nonsense.

There's coffee in that nebula *shudder*

To be fair that was very early days in the show. Neelix "chief morale officer" *double shudder*. For the most part I really enjoyed Janeway, especially in the later seasons. Funnily enough her best moments seemed to be acting opposite Jeri Ryan even though rumor has it she was a **** to her off screen.

Wibbs · 18-12-2018 12:16am

RayCun wrote: »

You're really hitting the stereotypes hard. Women can be lead characters, as long as they are like Ripley. Or Sarah Connors.

I personally find the musing around the gender thing regarding lead characters very interesting on a few levels RC. Take the "Hero's Journey" as a narrative. It's damned near everywhere in all the world's cultures and has been for literally many thousands of years. All the way back to the Epic of Gilgamesh of Uruk. Hunter gatherer folks have similar narrative arcs, so it could go back tens of thousands of years. For men. Women don't really have one like that in the history of story, or it's vanishingly rare. Their narrative arc(s) is different and a little more varied. Mostly boiling down to the princess, or the queen, or the queen mother. Mixed in with patience and stoicism at their lot at the start of the narrative. Now they can be and often were/are warrior princesses, queens or queen mothers, who command armies and nations and kick arse themselves. Game of Thrones plugs into this stuff a lot. Highly popular chord striking cultural tales almost always plug into ancient narratives(I'd nearly say always). Doesn't mean we can't come up with our own of course, or twists on same, as some have.

Shite, where was I...

But anyway RC, you seem to have missed Missy and Song and yer wan from Star Trek. Are they stereotypes too? Connors is the most gung ho of them, but she also plays the "hysterical female" angle and shows she's not the hysterical one and she went full Rambo in the second outing and that was bloody unusual for the time, so there's that.

But let's take Ripley. She isn't gung ho. She's very measured, shows a range of emotions and weaknesses and strengths and growth and intelligence and takes control without any macho guff, only going 80's action hero towards the end of Aliens and even then cleverly uses the tech around her to augment that, rather than the usual unbelievable superhuman strength(and no just in women). Doesn't pull any of the romance thing either, beyond a hint of mutual attraction with one of the marines in her second outing. Even the alien is of the lady persuasion, as is the pilot of the drop ship, as is one of the marines. The little girl has survived on the colony using her wits where all the others pegged it. It's a story where the men are mostly kinda bloody useless and believably so rather than it being a beaten over your head with a little girls saying men are stupid plot device. It also passes the Bechdel test with flying colours. And Weaver walks away with it. Even more impressively as the original concept and script was originally written as a man, and they changed little of the Alien 1 script to accommodate that. That such a flic was produced in the middle of the height of 80's steroid pumped high concept musclemen and in a science fiction flic with it always makes me think fair bloody play. So yeah RC, if she's a stereotype of a woman as lead, then sign me up.

Actually is Sigourney available? As well as all the above, she can play for laughs too and she'd have the mature gravitas vibe with it. I'd crowdfund that for Dr Who.

(no really)

I think Whittaker has been given less to work with this season, but I'm open to seeing where she can go with the character, beyond "can be threatening".

I'd love to see her not be as wooden as a plank delivering lines(with extra gurning and screwdriver). And not just her. The am dram vibe is strong. That Bradley Walsh is a fan and critic fave and even naysayers like him as a "good actor" says much. Nothing agin Bradley, he's treaded the boards and did soaps so can act as a near automatic thing and that comes across. He's still, he sounds like he's reacting to what people are saying rather than waiting for his cue. He can act. Now look at the companions...

***The Word count and wandering nonsense in this post where brought to you by Wibbs©™ from 2009. A fine if overly dense vintage. A bit acidy too if I'm honest. And don't get me started on the nose. No really***

fritzelly · 18-12-2018 12:32am

TBH I'm not really sure what thread I'm following anymore

RayCun · 18-12-2018 9:41am

Wibbs wrote: »

Take the "Hero's Journey" as a narrative. It's damned near everywhere in all the world's cultures and has been for literally many thousands of years. All the way back to the Epic of Gilgamesh of Uruk. Hunter gatherer folks have similar narrative arcs, so it could go back tens of thousands of years. For men. Women don't really have one like that in the history of story, or it's vanishingly rare.

The vague story outline of the Hero's Journey contains nothing ineluctably masculine. Call to adventure/meeting mentor/dark night of the soul etc - doesn't have to be a man going through it (or an action-figure female either).

But how can you talk about women and the history of story without acknowledging that women's stories were not privileged - and so not preserved - in the same way as men's stories?

I mean you're basically saying women can't be heroes because the central figures in the old stories we know were men, as if this was something to do with the nature of story and nothing to do with the nature of society.

Wibbs wrote: »

Their narrative arc(s) is different and a little more varied. Mostly boiling down to the princess, or the queen, or the queen mother. Mixed in with patience and stoicism at their lot at the start of the narrative.

Gosh, it's almost as if there was some reason why storytellers didn't make women the central characters, or depicted them without agency?

Wibbs wrote: »

But anyway RC, you seem to have missed Missy and Song and yer wan from Star Trek. Are they stereotypes too?

Missy was a scenery-chewing panto character, Song was a space pirate. Fun, and well-played, but Missy wouldn't work as the central character at all, and Song would have to be in a very different show.

Wibbs wrote: »

....Even more impressively as the original concept and script was originally written as a man, and they changed little of the Alien 1 script to accommodate that.

I'm just going to let that sit there so we can all have a think about it

Wibbs · 18-12-2018 10:18am

RayCun wrote: »

But how can you talk about women and the history of story without acknowledging that women's stories were not privileged - and so not preserved - in the same way as men's stories?

Actually they were. I know it doesn't fit the current gender identity stuff but female archetypes and narratives are just as pervasive throughout history. And prehistory with it. There is far more early art depicting women than men for example. How they're viewed as negatives or positives is down to culture. Look at European fairy tales as one example. Just as many women, if not more at times. Ditto for the Greek pantheon(and they were astoundingly sexist cultures). And that's just European cultures.

Gosh, it's almost as if there was some reason why storytellers didn't make women the central characters, or depicted them without agency?

Again they did. Indeed many narratives about men depict them without agency put upon by gods and forces beyond their control. That's extremely common, but if one has already decided who the victims are it could easily be missed.

I'm just going to let that sit there so we can all have a think about it

They took out the macho gung ho stuff to make it a "female" role.

fritzelly wrote:

TBH I'm not really sure what thread I'm following anymore

True. My fault TBH.

I'll bugger off now.

RayCun · 18-12-2018 10:30am

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually they were. I know it doesn't fit the current gender identity stuff but female archetypes and narratives are just as pervasive throughout history. And prehistory with it. There is far more early art depicting women than men for example. How they're viewed as negatives or positives is down to culture. Look at European fairy tales as one example. Just as many women, if not more at times. Ditto for the Greek pantheon(and they were astoundingly sexist cultures). And that's just European cultures.

Who is telling these stories? The Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, Homer, Virgil, Chaucer, Malory...

Wibbs wrote: »

Again they did. Indeed many narratives about men depict them without agency put upon by gods and forces beyond their control. That's extremely common, but if one has already decided who the victims are it could easily be missed.

Who are the central characters of Greek myth? Theseus, Hercules, Jason, Achilles, Odysseus, Hector...

Wibbs wrote: »

They took out the macho gung ho stuff to make it a "female" role.

As you said, the script was barely changed. IIRC, the major change was adding the cat, because if a female character did exactly the same things as a male character she would be seen as cold and unsympathetic.

So your major example of a great female role, the model that should be used for female lead characters, is a character written for a man...

Franz Von Peppercorn · 18-12-2018 1:57pm

How would, or should, an action character written for a woman differ?

RayCun · 18-12-2018 2:49pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

How would, or should, an action character written for a woman differ?

why does a strong female lead character = action character?

We seem to have this linkage where 'lead character' = 'possesses authority' = 'can be intimidating', and for a woman that requires carrying a gun?

But there's no reason why Doctor Who, of all characters, has to be intimidating. That whole "I am the last of the Timelords and you should be very scared!" thing is fairly recent.

My problem with the current series is that the writers either haven't figured out the one-line summary of this Doctor's character, or haven't written an episode that will throw that character into sharp relief. Eccleston had a speech about being the last of his kind in the second episode, and that was the character - traumatized survivor of the war, learning to appreciate life again with the companionship of Rose. Tennant's first season was defined by Rose, and over that season he was able to build a character. Matt Smith had a great first episode, lots of character-establishing dialog. Capaldi was able to lean in to his appearance and previous roles, the Doctor as nicer Malcolm Tucker.

This season hasn't given Whittaker anything to do that she would do particularly differently to Tennant or Smith. She hasn't explained herself to her companions (or have them explain her to herself). In general, between the four people in the Tardis, only the Graham/Ryan relationship has been given much depth. Graham has had more character development than the Doctor, in fact.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 18-12-2018 8:58pm

RayCun wrote: »

why does a strong female lead character = action character?

Because that’s what we were taking about. Not Pride and Prejudice.

We seem to have this linkage where 'lead character' = 'possesses authority' = 'can be intimidating', and for a woman that requires carrying a gun?

Not sure where the gun came from but yes, possessing authority helps.

But there's no reason why Doctor Who, of all characters, has to be intimidating. That whole "I am the last of the Timelords and you should be very scared!" thing is fairly recent.

Fairly recent is the new reboot? Most wont remember the old one.

My problem with the current series is that the writers either haven't figured out the one-line summary of this Doctor's character, or haven't written an episode that will throw that character into sharp relief. Eccleston had a speech about being the last of his kind in the second episode, and that was the character - traumatized survivor of the war, learning to appreciate life again with the companionship of Rose. Tennant's first season was defined by Rose, and over that season he was able to build a character. Matt Smith had a great first episode, lots of character-establishing dialog. Capaldi was able to lean in to his appearance and previous roles, the Doctor as nicer Malcolm Tucker.

This season hasn't given Whittaker anything to do that she would do particularly differently to Tennant or Smith. She hasn't explained herself to her companions (or have them explain her to herself). In general, between the four people in the Tardis, only the Graham/Ryan relationship has been given much depth. Graham has had more character development than the Doctor, in fact.

Agree with that.

fritzelly · 18-12-2018 10:45pm

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/12/18/doctorwho-christmas-special-surprise/

corkie · 20-12-2018 12:54pm

The Story of Rose Tyler | The Women Who Lived | Doctor Who

Found another clip on youtube, I wonder will they do more for other characters/companions.

Edit: - Looks like they are extracts from the DVD book?

pixelburp · 20-12-2018 1:37pm

Man, nothing from the 2005+ era has disappointed or annoyed me more than Rose's entire arc; Season 11 had its flaws, but nothing on a par with the whole "companion falls madly in love with the Doctor" angle from the past.

Stark · 20-12-2018 2:49pm

Even more annoying was they followed it straight up with Martha falling madly in love with the Doctor. Thank god they stayed away from that with Catherine Tate/Donna Noble.

FunLover18 · 20-12-2018 2:49pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Man, nothing from the 2005+ era has disappointed or annoyed me more than Rose's entire arc; Season 11 had its flaws, but nothing on a par with the whole "companion falls madly in love with the Doctor" angle from the past.

The weird happy ending where she gets her own mortal version of the doctor is one the creepiest abd cringiest things I've ever seen. What were they thinking?

Wibbs · 20-12-2018 9:10pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Man, nothing from the 2005+ era has disappointed or annoyed me more than Rose's entire arc; Season 11 had its flaws, but nothing on a par with the whole "companion falls madly in love with the Doctor" angle from the past.

That said she was extremely popular with the public PB. Topped the polls of "best companion" for years after she left(wouldn't surprise if she was still close to the top even today). It's one major diff between the more "nerdy" hardcore fans and the usual couch TV remote surfers.

I liked RTD's choice of a "chav" blonde in a council flat, rather than the more generally cast received accent middle class type. I thought it might have been an interesting angle and sometimes it was and not necessarily in a positive way(there was a hint of grooming going on). That someone like her in a dead end life might run away and fall for the guy who took her away made perfect sense. Especially if he looked like Dave Tennant.

But yeah they really overcooked it and the clone doctor happy ending was really daft. If they'd left it at the emotional goodbye on the beach then OK* Again they knew she was mad popular as was this "love story" so they brought her back. Twice. For the ratings.

Catherine Tate was a breath of fresh air that way. And in a natural way. She just didn't fancy skinny spaceboy.

Personally I liked their dynamic. Her "you wot mate?" when he went a bit daft, mixed with genuine affection. Of the new bunch she's about the only one I could imagine being a companion in the classic Who. Her and Tom Baker's Doc would have been funny.

*which got me in the feels at the time I have to admit. Then again I was madly in lurve at the time too and that renders one daft anyway.

pixelburp · 20-12-2018 9:34pm

Rose as a character was fine if I'm honest, but only when she wasn't aggressively pining for the Doc (IIRC she hassled Sarah Jane Smith to her face over being an "ex"). It was kinda bit Twilight with the grooming all right, dunno, maybe that was just the zeitgeist. That and the Docs midlife crisis stringing along a young blonde with daddy issues

those early series haven't aged that we'll have they.

The chav angle was fine, and made a good change but even with that they gilded the lily way too much. Honestly, latterly I've wondered if RTD was a bit of a terrible writer coasting on goodwill and a vaguely decent ear for dialogue

20-12-2018 9:36pm

Donna is the absolute best of the lot in the new show.

Still think that Bill, given more than the short time she had, would have bounced really well off of Capaldi's older doc

TheValeyard · 21-12-2018 10:30am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Donna is the absolute best of the lot in the new show.

Still think that Bill, given more than the short time she had, would have bounced really well off of Capaldi's older doc

I still really loved Amy & Rory, great companions.

21-12-2018 11:03am

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

I still really loved Amy & Rory, great companions.

Once they stopped the crap of Amy sh!tting on Rory with the, very badly written, obsession she had with The Doctor.

Doctor DooM · 21-12-2018 2:39pm

People are being very rose tinted (ahem) about early reboot Who.

Russell T is responsible for plenty of episodes that made me actually roll my eyes, and paper thin characters everywhere. Season 11 has its flaws- it's very twee and it never felt like it was going anywhere really- but it never actively came across as bad as some episodes of the first few series (a friend of mine swore he'd never bother with Who again after Gridlock. That was far from the worst one). Some of that stuff made me want to flip a table when it happened.

That said, RTD also wrote one of my favourite episodes of Who, Midnight, I think it really stands up. Interestingly it's an episode where the Doctor is very vulnerable and no one is doing what he tells them- far away from the lonely god he usually seemed.

Wibbs · 21-12-2018 8:55pm

A few months back - actually because of this forum where it was suggested if I was WTF re the new series I had all the back catalogue to look at - so I did.

A few things surprised me. One oddly enough was how irritating I found Tennants false English accent to be after a while.

Didn't at the time. The very first series was defo finding its feet and tone and ranged all over the place from farting fat aliens to musings on crime and punishment for one of the same, and an episode on meeting a dead parent only to watch them die again. Heavy stuff for early evening "kids" show. The WW2 era one was good, the corpses filled with gas not so bad either and again both with musings on different moralities.

Notably the first outing wasn't nearly as bloody obvious with right on lecturing as latter ones became during Capaldi's tenure and not within an asses roar of the current one. There was less of the more nerdy appeal Easter eggs and arcs stuff too, though the bad wolf stuff introduced it and the interwebs became much more of a thing and influence on fans since it came back, so there's that.

Tennant's run was overall pretty good, with a few stinkers which you'd expect TBH. And a few real crackers. Donna was brill, Martha was meh. Smith impressed me much more on a second watch I have to say. Oh there were some stinkers but he had a trick of making you ignore them more. Rory was cool, his da should have had more screen time, but TBH the Amy wan generally irritated the bejesus outa me. Capaldi was the best actor out of all of them IMHO. Sadly let down by more and more meh scripts.

Having watched the previous series with the different vibes to each, the current one lands like a spaceship in Tudor England. It really has the feel of a reboot for me. Much more childish, more cbeebees and as D said above "twee". Like the first season it doesn't know what it wants to be, but unlike the first season doesn't have the highlights or for that matter the lowlights, it's just.. well, meh. It certainly doesn't have the character building or development of any of the main players really. There's little overall connection between one outing and the next. The first "Rose" ep may have its faults like demon placcy dustbins, but look at the part were she first goes through the doors of the Tardis and how well that few minutes is written.

Doctor DooM · 22-12-2018 11:54am

Wibbs wrote: »

A few months back - actually because of this forum where it was suggested if I was WTF re the new series I had all the back catalogue to look at - so I did.

That was me that suggested that, and you reacted like I'd just told you to go feck yourself. I hope you see now that I actually was just speaking the truth for someone who's been through endless retcons and reboots of various beloved properties. They will always move on with the times, they have to, but genuinely do not let that rob the stuff you love of the joy it gave you.

Sometimes it really works out. The go to example of this is the X-Men, who only became more than a footnote when they changed from 4 white American boys and a girl to a Canadian man, a native American, a Japanese man, a Black African woman, a Russian, a German, and an Irishman. It was so successful sometimes you run into raging types online who think that was the original line up that shouldn't ever be changed and not the reboot

The other thing you learn about this is sooner or later the status quo will return. Ironheart didn't click: Iron Man came back. Superman didn't stay dead long.

I ceased thinking modernising a property is an issue years ago. I want more people to share with and more media to consume. If it stays the same, it dies. I do need, however, that modernised media to be good, as those Claremont written X-Men were, or for example the new Spider-Man (a latino Spider-Man? Can you imagine what people said about him at first?) currently adorning our cinemas.

So it's normal for me to just wait and see. Sadly I think in trying to "lo fi" Doctor Who they made some bad mistakes in terms of narratives. I never felt the urgency was earned in a lot of the episodes, and the lack of a running narrative really hurt.

I don't mind moralising in Who, it's been there all along, and I think you're not noticing how much gay/bi rights stuff was front and centre in those early episodes tbh because it's ten years later

but if it's not hung on a good story, then it is glaring.The India episode was one of the few that really worked for me because I enjoyed the story.

Anyway that's enough of this undirected word flow!

Wibbs · 22-12-2018 12:40pm

Doctor DooM wrote: »

That was me that suggested that, and you reacted like I'd just told you to go feck yourself.

Actually IIRC you opened with something along the lines of "I'm sorry change scares you" and ran from there, which is about as supercilious as one can get. That's what I reacted to.

Sadly I think in trying to "lo fi" Doctor Who they made some bad mistakes in terms of narratives. I never felt the urgency was earned in a lot of the episodes, and the lack of a running narrative really hurt.

Plus yer wan is useless as the main character, the sidekicks are barely there and the stories were confused. Even things like the production design are off kilter.

I don't mind moralising in Who, it's been there all along, and I think you're not noticing how much gay/bi rights stuff was front and centre in those early episodes tbh because it's ten years later

Well I've I just recently ran through much of the old stuff, so memories aren't in play and yep it's there, but not nearly to the preachy level of often box ticking overt stuff over the last couple of years. And in every episode with it and like you said if it's not a good storytelling it's glaring. And like I said earlier some of my fave stories/drama in history are clearly propaganda with an angle, but they're good stories with good characters.

I'm not so surprised on how this went mind you. Reboots, especially of the clear the decks type are usually not driven by any particular "ideology" that the yays/nays have a fit reacting to, but much more about bums on seats. Sales flagging? Let's make WonderWoman a bloke, that'll get the column inches, rants on both sides on the interwebs and maybe attract a different demographic that we can flog stuff to. When industry types refer to "preferred demographics" they mean a previously untapped demographic more likely to part with more cash. If it fails, then do another reboot. Doctor Who is perfect for this as if it doesn't work, take a break, cue up a regeneration and new showrunner and leak tales of "creative differences" to the press.

22-12-2018 12:49pm

Good stories, with social message, educate and challenge.

Bad stories, with overt messaging, preach and shame.

Wibbs · 22-12-2018 1:51pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Good stories, with social message, educate and challenge.

Bad stories, with overt messaging, preach and shame.

Nail on the head CE. Worse when there's added marketing cynicism attached(Star Wars being an example). To be fair Who is not too bad on his latter score as being a BBC property it doesn't have quite the financial and ratings pressures of an independent production fighting for a renewal. And it has decades of goodwill behind it. Though the latter can be a double edged sword. Change too much or too little and that can be lost. It walks a shakier tightrope compared to an all new series on that front.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 22-12-2018 5:01pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Donna is the absolute best of the lot in the new show.

Still think that Bill, given more than the short time she had, would have bounced really well off of Capaldi's older doc

Bill was great.

23-12-2018 12:02am

Wibbs wrote: »

Nail on the head CE. Worse when there's added marketing cynicism attached(Star Wars being an example). To be fair Who is not too bad on his latter score as being a BBC property it doesn't have quite the financial and ratings pressures of an independent production fighting for a renewal. And it has decades of goodwill behind it. Though the latter can be a double edged sword. Change too much or too little and that can be lost. It walks a shakier tightrope compared to an all new series on that front.

One of the best examples ever was the ST:TNG episode "The Outcast"
In the 80s it not only made you think that a "gay" relationship was normal (and government interference insane) but that trans issues were real.
Tgis was the 1980s qnd and there was no preaching in that episode.

They used a story to tell a message not use a message to craft a story

pixelburp · 23-12-2018 12:52am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One of the best examples ever was the ST:TNG episode "The Outcast"
In the 80s it not only made you think that a "gay" relationship was normal (and government interference insane) but that trans issues were real.
Tgis was the 1980s qnd and there was no preaching in that episode.

They used a story to tell a message not use a message to craft a story

Hmmm, disagree on that; bashed it on the Trek forum before (broken record

), but while its obvious message on gay rights was clearly trailblazing, it was only subtle in the sense that it told that particular story through allegory. An allegory that had all the nuance of a hammer on glass. It was Trek at its most openly preachy IMO, and the romance undercut by the shows then absence of serialisation, Riker seemingl unfazed by this forbidden love. The nature of the story alone meant it felt like it started life as a sly way to sneak a gay rights message into a script, while avoiding the more puritanical reality of the 80s TV landscape.

I dunno, I just don't buy this argument of "story first", especially in a genre so obviously and openly far thinking, progressive as SciFi. It's a ideas driven world at its heart, and more often than not these stories start as explorations of humanity, of prejudice, sexuality, and so on. Not the other way around, but with the story and plot coming after. If something becomes preachy I think it's either because the writer laid it on to thick, or the reader was looking for it (wouldn't be uncommon for audiences to find higher meaning in ostensibly shallow media, or latterly, looking for offence because the leads a woman, black, whatever).

Now, that's just speaking as someone who (poorly) dabbles in writing - so aint speaking for scriptwriters. But I start with the idea, the cause or character, the put them in a scenario that challenges their personhood. Establish the people, their routines, then throw the grenade in, be it metaphorical or literal

pixelburp · 27-12-2018 4:47pm

Warning to spoilerphobes, the latest, 30 second trailer for the New Year's episode contains a reveal as to the hitherto unnamed villain

jrkb · 28-12-2018 12:19am

Well after an utterly boring season hopefully the

Daleks

can liven things up and Whittaker can show how good she really is.

fritzelly · 28-12-2018 12:28am

Well there goes avoiding the trailer!!! (tho it's been speculated)

pixelburp · 28-12-2018 12:37am

Damnit jrkb, spoilered your reply, it's a small deference to hide the reveal, having only just warned people to watchout.

:rolleyes:

Wibbs · 28-12-2018 11:17am

pixelburp wrote: »

Hmmm, disagree on that; bashed it on the Trek forum before (broken record ), but while its obvious message on gay rights was clearly trailblazing, it was only subtle in the sense that it told that particular story through allegory. An allegory that had all the nuance of a hammer on glass. It was Trek at its most openly preachy IMO, and the romance undercut by the shows then absence of serialisation, Riker seemingl unfazed by this forbidden love. The nature of the story alone meant it felt like it started life as a sly way to sneak a gay rights message into a script, while avoiding the more puritanical reality of the 80s TV landscape.

TBH I can't remember that far back and I'd be a passing by I'd watch that if it came on the telly Trek fan, but I'm buying into your angle on it. My general personal vibe with the 80's Star Trek was a mixture of "wow, cool FX"(at the time), some cool tales, but a lot of pofaced disgruntled, but still preaching, 60's hippie to it too.

I dunno, I just don't buy this argument of "story first", especially in a genre so obviously and openly far thinking, progressive as SciFi.

Well PB it does hugely depend on upon the when as much as the genre. Since its earliest days SciFi has been many things; political propaganda of all types, at a remove reflections of current concerns, escapism, musings on the shiny "future", or the future to be worried about(HAL9000 and such). With a couple of exceptions not a lot of "progressive" going on with most reds under the bed 50's Hollywood Scifi.

It's really only become mainstream "progressive" in the last couple of decades. Hell it's only become truly mainstream since the 70's. Until Star Wars hit cinemas hawking a Scifi script in Hollywood was a hard sell. Even something like Dune that sprang from the hippie 60's, with it's esoteric religion and Fremen rebels, was also stuck in the fifties and earlier. Star Wars is Flash Gordon, Hollywood world war two and Samurai flics(with a large dollop of Dune).

Though I would contend pretty much all story/art is propaganda of some stripe. In its earliest days around the high sparking hearth of a rock shelter it was the passing on of memory as instruction, often with a moral caution so that it would be remembered and followed. The hearth and rock shelter got fancier, but not so much has changed and neither have the stories, or characters for that matter. The Doctor could easily fit into the Greek tales; a semi immortal demigod sage from a dead race of titans who travels with companions around the Mediterranean in his magic boat meeting strange inhabitants and gods and monsters of far flung islands(though they'd be wondering what the end game is).

jrkb wrote: »

Well after an utterly boring season hopefully the
Daleks
can liven things up and Whittaker can show how good she really is.

A hope indeed. I doubt it myself. More another hail mary attempt to claw back something out of a bloody awful season/setup/production and/or the contractual obligation to have one episode per season featuring same is a reality.

Polls of both critics and audiences are unreliable, ratings can be spun in every direction and as we've seen both have been, but I suspect what will be the final arbiter of true popularity and impact of this reboot is the merchandising. We've seen this in huge event type franchises like Star Wars. The new trilogy polarised opinion with lots of ranting and got lots of bums on seats, but trailed off pretty quickly considering and the merchandise died a death. The Lego stuff stayed relatively buoyant, but the majority of sales were of the "old favourites". The Beeb makes big money from the merchandising and if that takes a tumble... I'll peer into my crystal ball and lay a bet that it will.

pixelburp · 28-12-2018 1:18pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Well PB it does hugely depend on upon the when as much as the genre. Since its earliest days SciFi has been many things; political propaganda of all types, at a remove reflections of current concerns, escapism, musings on the shiny "future", or the future to be worried about(HAL9000 and such). With a couple of exceptions not a lot of "progressive" going on with most reds under the bed 50's Hollywood Scifi.

It's really only become mainstream "progressive" in the last couple of decades. Hell it's only become truly mainstream since the 70's. Until Star Wars hit cinemas hawking a Scifi script in Hollywood was a hard sell. Even something like Dune that sprang from the hippie 60's, with it's esoteric religion and Fremen rebels, was also stuck in the fifties and earlier. Star Wars is Flash Gordon, Hollywood world war two and Samurai flics(with a large dollop of Dune).

I think because the genre exists in so many media, in so many forms there's probably confusion over what source we're each taking here: TBH given its origin came from the written word, my own perspective of the genre tends to be book first, Hollywood second. And in that respect, for me where the genre was treated 'seriously' there has tended to be a progressive, expansive point of view from writers of all stripes. The so-called 'Golden Age of SciFi' birthed Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Wyndham, Heinlein etc etc; and while their output wasn't necessarily what I previously flagged as 'progressive', they acted as a sort of rebuke to a trashier period of the whole 'alpha male saves the cosmos' myth, trying to explore new horizons of humanity.
So IMO they're all part of a foundational growth, that you could use SciFi to explore race, gender, sexuality, humanity - that the genre could be more. Later writers took on those subjects - such as Gene Rodenberry & Star Trek, but it was those previous writers that opened the door.

(Obviously, all of the above is from a very American centric point of view, with UK, German, French, Japanese SciFi having its own set of perspectives and zeitgeists. That we're focusing on the American side of things tells its own story).

You're absolutely correct however in that American SciFi only went mainstream and more flashy, disposable in cinema during the late 70s; a lot of 50s cinema did amount to Communism scare stories, but you did still see the diamonds in the rough: THX 1138, Forbidden Planet, 2001, Fareinheit 451, Colossus the Forbin Project, Phase IV, Silent Running to name a few. Again, not ostensibly 'progressive', but definitely expansive.

Wibbs wrote: »

Polls of both critics and audiences are unreliable, ratings can be spun in every direction and as we've seen both have been, but I suspect what will be the final arbiter of true popularity and impact of this reboot is the merchandising. We've seen this in huge event type franchises like Star Wars. The new trilogy polarised opinion with lots of ranting and got lots of bums on seats, but trailed off pretty quickly considering and the merchandise died a death. The Lego stuff stayed relatively buoyant, but the majority of sales were of the "old favourites". The Beeb makes big money from the merchandising and if that takes a tumble... I'll peer into my crystal ball and lay a bet that it will.

It also depends on what the BBC classify as their own metrics for success: they're a corporation but obviously a government / publicly funded one so I don't imagine the bottom line is necessarily the main element at play. No more than any other TV show Doctor Who will air while it's popular, but IMO there's no real way of knowing what 'popular' constitutes here. Merchandising may not be as critical a factor at the BBC, especially as when compared with behemoths such as Star Wars, the volume of tat available to the discerning nerd or parent is much less.

As mentioned, the viewing stats seem to have been quite healthy throughout the year, and more than ever the US market appears to have become an important corner in Dr. Who's ongoing relevance (to the point where I've wondered if perhaps the show might eventually get moved to BBC America, where BBC Wales to pass on it).

With the disappearance of Top Gear, Dr. Who is arguably the BBC's preeminent show in terms of tentpole promotion as a service for mainstream, blockbuster entertainment. Can't see the corporation mothballing it unless it becomes a huge loss-maker. The budgets might get slashed but I suspect the show will persist for a while yet.

ebbsy · 31-12-2018 11:03pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Wibbs wrote: »

Well PB it does hugely depend on upon the when as much as the genre. Since its earliest days SciFi has been many things; political propaganda of all types, at a remove reflections of current concerns, escapism, musings on the shiny "future", or the future to be worried about(HAL9000 and such). With a couple of exceptions not a lot of "progressive" going on with most reds under the bed 50's Hollywood Scifi.

It's really only become mainstream "progressive" in the last couple of decades. Hell it's only become truly mainstream since the 70's. Until Star Wars hit cinemas hawking a Scifi script in Hollywood was a hard sell. Even something like Dune that sprang from the hippie 60's, with it's esoteric religion and Fremen rebels, was also stuck in the fifties and earlier. Star Wars is Flash Gordon, Hollywood world war two and Samurai flics(with a large dollop of Dune).

I think because the genre exists in so many media, in so many forms there's probably confusion over what source we're each taking here: TBH given its origin came from the written word, my own perspective of the genre tends to be book first, Hollywood second. And in that respect, for me where the genre was treated 'seriously' there has tended to be a progressive, expansive point of view from writers of all stripes. The so-called 'Golden Age of SciFi' birthed Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Wyndham, Heinlein etc etc; and while their output wasn't necessarily what I previously flagged as 'progressive', they acted as a sort of rebuke to a trashier period of the whole 'alpha male saves the cosmos' myth, trying to explore new horizons of humanity.
So IMO they're all part of a foundational growth, that you could use SciFi to explore race, gender, sexuality, humanity - that the genre could be more. Later writers took on those subjects - such as Gene Rodenberry & Star Trek, but it was those previous writers that opened the door.

(Obviously, all of the above is from a very American centric point of view, with UK, German, French, Japanese SciFi having its own set of perspectives and zeitgeists. That we're focusing on the American side of things tells its own story).

You're absolutely correct however in that American SciFi only went mainstream and more flashy, disposable in cinema during the late 70s; a lot of 50s cinema did amount to Communism scare stories, but you did still see the diamonds in the rough: THX 1138, Forbidden Planet, 2001, Fareinheit 451, Colossus the Forbin Project, Phase IV, Silent Running to name a few. Again, not ostensibly 'progressive', but definitely expansive.

Wibbs wrote: »

Polls of both critics and audiences are unreliable, ratings can be spun in every direction and as we've seen both have been, but I suspect what will be the final arbiter of true popularity and impact of this reboot is the merchandising. We've seen this in huge event type franchises like Star Wars. The new trilogy polarised opinion with lots of ranting and got lots of bums on seats, but trailed off pretty quickly considering and the merchandise died a death. The Lego stuff stayed relatively buoyant, but the majority of sales were of the "old favourites". The Beeb makes big money from the merchandising and if that takes a tumble... I'll peer into my crystal ball and lay a bet that it will.

It also depends on what the BBC classify as their own metrics for success: they're a corporation but obviously a government / publicly funded one so I don't imagine the bottom line is necessarily the main element at play. No more than any other TV show Doctor Who will air while it's popular, but IMO there's no real way of knowing what 'popular' constitutes here. Merchandising may not be as critical a factor at the BBC, especially as when compared with behemoths such as Star Wars, the volume of tat available to the discerning nerd or parent is much less.

As mentioned, the viewing stats seem to have been quite healthy throughout the year, and more than ever the US market appears to have become an important corner in Dr. Who's ongoing relevance (to the point where I've wondered if perhaps the show might eventually get moved to BBC America, where BBC Wales to pass on it).

With the disappearance of Top Gear, Dr. Who is arguably the BBC's preeminent show in terms of tentpole promotion as a service for mainstream, blockbuster entertainment. Can't see the corporation mothballing it unless it becomes a huge loss-maker. The budgets might get slashed but I suspect the show will persist for a while yet.

I suspect the budget has been cut already this season, people running around quarries etc.

The fact that it's on hiatus doesn't bode well either.

pixelburp · 01-01-2019 12:00am

ebbsy wrote: »

I suspect the budget has been cut already this season, people running around quarries etc.

The fact that it's on hiatus doesn't bode well either.

Well they did do a bunch of filming abroad this time, only sensible they temper that with some quarries. Budgets only go so far. Plus what's doctor who without some hot quarry action?

And it's not on hiatus, cmon. The next series is due "early 2020", which will be just over a year from the Jan 1 2019 episode, 1989-2005 was a hiatus!

There was no Game of Thrones, Stranger Things or Man in the High Castle last year to name three; Peak TV doesn't do year-on-year series anymore.

Wibbs · 01-01-2019 11:28am

pixelburp wrote: »

Well they did do a bunch of filming abroad this time, only sensible they temper that with some quarries. Budgets only go so far. Plus what's doctor who without some hot quarry action?

If anything I'd say the budget was up for this season. Certainly on par with previous. New sets, more regular cast members, higher def.

fritzelly · 01-01-2019 10:01pm

Well that didn't disappoint in being boring with a liberal dose of melodrama - if it wasn't for them mentioning NYE you'd think it was just any old episode.

flazio · 01-01-2019 11:16pm

I enjoyed that one. Good use of the Dalek.

TheValeyard · 01-01-2019 11:38pm

flazio wrote: »

I enjoyed that one. Good use of the Dalek.

Good use of Dalek. Terrible choice of music to represent it.

TheIrishGrover · 01-01-2019 11:59pm

Was it just me or was it difficult to hear most of the dialogue apart from the Dalek? I thought the voiceover and most of the dialogue was almost drowned out by the music.

And quite dull and uninspiring music at that.

I kept having to turn the volume up to hear the characters and then immediately turn down again when the Dalek dialogue kicked in.

I miss the music from the Matt Smith period. I thought that was energising and uplifting but this was just muddled and generic.

The episode itself was OK. It's strange, I enjoy all the main characters and enjoyed some episodes but, overall, this season has been very "Meh"

CastorTroy · 02-01-2019 12:50am

Imagine how much trouble they could have avoided if she had just scanned Lin like she did the other guy. And does the sonic not work on slime on the wall?

Think this whole season has just left me disinterested. Wasn't exactly loving this episode, especially the long scene with Ryan and his dad.

Have Daleks always been able to fire rockets like that?

jasonb · 02-01-2019 1:40am

I thought that was the return of the Daleks and the return of the worst aspects of Russell T. Davis as well! Very over the top, Earth at risk, plot holes everywhere.

What was the point of the other two sites (Siberia and the Island)? I thought for a while we’d go back to them (and I quickly realized then that we wouldn’t and they’d never be mentioned again). I even thought for a second that the Dalek was going to travel to them. But no, never seen again.

As someone else said, why not scan Lin after scanning the other guy? How did the naked Dalek get out of an exploding shell (without seeing it open) and onto Ryan’s Dad back in a couple of seconds? Why would the Dalek trust the Doctor and assume without looking that they were at the Dalek fleet? Why would the Octopus-sized vacumn suddenly get bigger, and why would just holding on to someone, when you’re barely holding on to anything yourself, stop you both from going out into the collapsing sun?

For me, far too many obvious issues with it, including the Dalek ‘music’, and the ability to build a flying Dalek from a big tool shed (with new improved weapons, I presume stolen from that Armoury). It’s probably the one episode that’s felt most like it was aimed firmly at kids, who might be more forgiving than I.

There was some good stuff (the Doctor telling Ryan’s Dad exactly what she thought the moment she met him was good) but it was easily my least favorite episode of the series.

CastorTroy · 02-01-2019 2:37am

I did laugh at the fact the alien weaponry was being guarded by a single new guy.

And I know we shouldn't overthink these things but when the guy was killed while carrying the Dalek part, not only did I find it strange the robbers didn't even check what he was carrying but then he and the package were left in that exact spot, on a road long enough to be covered naturally?

So what is the current status of the Daleks? I'm sure they've been supposedly wiped out a few times now.

flazio · 02-01-2019 6:49am

I suppose the music issue is because Murray Gold is no longer working for the series, they don't want to use his music anymore so the new guy whose name I've forgotten has to come up with new music.

jasonb · 02-01-2019 11:44am

CastorTroy wrote: »

I did laugh at the fact the alien weaponry was being guarded by a single new guy.

And I know we shouldn't overthink these things but when the guy was killed while carrying the Dalek part, not only did I find it strange the robbers didn't even check what he was carrying but then he and the package were left in that exact spot, on a road long enough to be covered naturally?

Ha, I’d forgotten that! What kind of robbers don’t even check a package being carried by the person they rob?

And what was in the package anyhow? Was it a part of the Dalek’s body (and the other two packages had other parts?). Can a Dalek fully regrow from just a small part of it’s body, just as long as you add UV Light? Why did the other body parts react whe the first body party started to regrow?

There just seemed to be so many things that made me go ‘Wait, what?’. Even little things, like when the Doctor is hiding from the Dalek, who is shooting at her, in the shed, and then he takes off through the roof and flies away, and the camera pans down to her outside the shed looking at him flying away. Not sure how she got out of the shed so quickly! I know it seems a bit like nit-picking, but there were so many things like this that it just took me out of the episode again and again.

CastorTroy · 02-01-2019 6:48pm

My understanding is that the other 2 pieces of the Dalek teleported to the piece under the light, because of course they can. That's what the Doctor picked up then.

The opening narration said the guards took a piece each and told no one where they were going and guarded it all the time, so where did the modern guards come from?

jasonb · 02-01-2019 9:10pm

CastorTroy wrote: »

My understanding is that the other 2 pieces of the Dalek teleported to the piece under the light, because of course they can. That's what the Doctor picked up then.

The opening narration said the guards took a piece each and told no one where they were going and guarded it all the time, so where did the modern guards come from?

There was something about their descendants taking over the guard duty, though I'd like to know who was on guard when they were busy making descendants! 😁

Doctor Who Season 11 [** Spoilers **]

Comments

Doctor Who Season 11 [ Spoilers ]