Doctor Who Season 11 [ Spoilers ]

[Deleted User] · 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.

[Deleted User] · 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.

[Deleted User] · 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 ]