Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
7 December 2015 at 05:19 #48936
@puroandson
Thanks for the info on the short story, appreciated. I didn’t want to rant about my dislike of last week’s episode because it could easily be mistaken for trolling. Also, most people on here loved it and I didn’t see any point on raining on that particular parade.
On other points. I also think the mind wipe thing will have only partially worked but this does not necessarily mean The Doctor is partially human ( although, he might be).
On the ‘Comedy’ ending….. In Shakespearian terms that usually means they get married at the end. That certainly puts an interesting light on the Thelma and Louise in Space thing.
I also think that there was a fair amount of religious referencing in this series, particularly towards the end.
Next up, the Christmas episode. Hmm, most of those have been disappointing. Well, here’s hoping this is a good one. Looking forward very much to the next series.
6 December 2015 at 23:48 #48882I liked this episode a lot. I think that those who felt let down, or that this was an anti climax, may have been too engrossed in last week’s episode. I was very much in the minority in thinking last week’s episode was a pile of self indulgent, silly tripe. I stand by that thought. Really, we could have gone from the end of ‘Raven’ to the start of this episode with virtually no difference. Well, nothing that quipped line wouldn’t have explained.
The ‘Tardis as a Diner’ thin reminded me of a short story I read a long time ago about a space ship disguised as a Diner where unsuspecting customers were abducted. Can anyone shed any light on that?
Back to the episode. Well done. Well written. Well acted. Music too intrusive (again) but you can’t have everything. Clara came into her own after the demise of Danny Pink. That whole Hollyoaks thing was turgid. A fitting finale that leaves a lot to offer. I am sure we will see the Diner and it’s occupants again. And whoever came up with the phrase ‘Thelma and Louise in Space’, well done.
29 November 2015 at 08:50 #48179I realise and accept that I am in the minority here but that episode did not work for me. Self indulgent, joyless, pretentious nonsense . I tried watching it again but remain unmoved. Don’t expect many on here to agree but that is my opinion. Glad so many appreciated it. Will look to next week with guarded interest.
22 November 2015 at 10:54 #47495A few thoughts
liked the stall selling scarves ‘As Worn by Sherlock Holmes’
Why is the TARDIS in a different place from where the Doctor left it?
Some of the comments on here are well out of order. It’s a forum. Not only are people allowed to have different opinions, they are supposed to have different opinions. Furthermore, one of the main reasons folk use this forum is to experience those opinions. Some folk need to calm down.
liked this episode. Thought it was a lot better than the previous one. Don’t have a clue what will happen next.
12 October 2015 at 17:54 #44606Is it of any relevance that one of the collective nouns for a group of ravens is ‘ A Conspiracy’? Are we being led up the garden path because they KNOW we will read too much in to it? And as for a ban on Latin? Nemo dat quod non habet
10 November 2014 at 17:59 #35263Well, here’s my opinion on a few things. I agree withthose who write that the cybermen were a let down. Par for the course really. They do a good clanking stomp but thats about it. The ‘coming out of the graves’ thing was good but it was badly timed. That could have been a lot more tense. As it was, they crawled out and erm…that was it. Could have been a taught finale. Oh, and the image of a cyberman hugging some-one is something I never want to see again.
Much to my surprise, I liked Mistress. I was a bit wary when it was voiced on here but I thought “Depends how it is written and how it is acted”. I liked it
Boy coming back from the dead. Meh!. That’s right up there with the girl materialising out of a bush – but it still falls short of the whole moon/egg thing
Capaldi, I think, was great throughout. Some duff episodes and some really dodgy moments but I am certainly looking forward to the next series. Well, that’s providing Clara isn’t in it. I am glad quite a few enjoyed her but for me the whole Clara/Danny thing was a bore. We ventured into Doctor Hollyoaks on occasion.
Can’t say I was interested in the whole story/arc thing. Too drawn out. Also, if you are going to pose all those questions then you really ought to make a bit of an effort to answer them
I liked the humour. That’s been a bit scarce in this series but there have been some laugh out loud moments. Thinking primarily of the Doctor’s little victory dance when he edged the TARDIS off the railway line a few episodes back. In this episode I liked the sky dive to the TARDIS and The Mistress’s “It’s our Paris”
One final point. The Cyberbrig. Brigadier Sir Alistair Gordon Leathbridge -Stewart was a big chap. I couldn’t help but feel he must have been very uncomfortable squished into that small suit. Do they do XXL Cybermen?
4 November 2014 at 05:58 #34711When Missy was sitting on the steps outside St Paul’s , did anyone else start singing ‘Feed the birds, tuppence a bag’?
19 October 2014 at 09:03 #33810Thought that was very good and original. A few points. I actually thought Clara was good in this episode, which surprised me. Perhaps it is the Clara/Danny Hollyoaks thing that grates. I do agree, however, that she is a bit too dialogue smart in situations where she really ought to be more concerned.
Now some bonkers stuff. There was an earlier discussion about how this series was channeling myths and folk tales. We saw more of that in this episode and the trailer for the next. Here- as someone has already pointed out – we saw a reference to Alice and the ‘Drink Me’ potion. We have already seen references to Robin Hood and a dragon. I am sure there are others. Next episode shows a girl I a red coat running into a dangerous forest. And we all know what’s in there – The (Big) Bad Wolf.
17 October 2014 at 15:43 #33684I think some clarification is in order as there are various assumptions on why I wrote what I did and what those comments meant. My comments on the use of certain terms used on this forum were exactly that – their use in this forum.
I thought I made that clear, perhaps I should have been clearer. The assumption by one person was that I had had a ‘flounce’ (not sure what that means but I think something akin to ‘strop’) because I did not like what that person had written in response to a previous comment from me. He then assumed I was ‘creating a problem for effect’. The reasoning behind this was because I hadn’t commented about the kiss in question in the first place . Wrong on a number of counts. I didn’t comment on the kiss in question because it didn’t bother me one way or another. I didn’t have a flounce/strop and I am really not interested in what others think goes on in my mind.
There appears to have been assumptions by others that I am somehow part of the groups towards whom the terms were directed and that I need to be taken to task. Wrong again.
It was then suggested elsewhere that I was of those people attempting a form of agenda management “to mask some truly offensive behaviour of their own”. Not very accurate and not very nice. Some soothing comments were then posted by the author, which I was pleased to see. May I remind you what it says in the Etiquette section of this forum?
“We like the community we’ve created here. It’s friendly, fun and respectful and we’d like to try to keep it that way. All we ask is a little bit of civility……. Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean that they’re stupid or Hitler.”
I said I thought that the terms used were out of place on this forum. I still think that. That is my opinion. I think the reaction to my comments, rather than the comments themselves, have been presumptive , condemnatory, and above all, judgemental. To paraphrase a person whom we all admire “My point being, in a forum as immense and bizarre as this one, you cannot be too quick to judge”.
17 October 2014 at 07:53 #33676I have read the rules on etiquette and have always respected other opinions even if I disagreed with them. If I am in a minority in thinking that terms such as ‘socially retarded’ and ‘knee-jerking homophobic fuckwits’ are acceptable on this forum then I will (gladly) delete my account and go elsewhere.
16 October 2014 at 18:48 #33625‘Socially retarded’ – an offensive comment in any context
13 October 2014 at 16:42 #33507@wordmuse – Well said.
12 October 2014 at 17:42 #33447@juniperfish – Interesting thoughts about all the reversing. Two ways of looking at it have crossed my mind . First thought was that it reminded me of another science fiction programme from the 60s – Captain Scarlet. Didn’t he have some sort of ‘reverse metabolism’ that allowed him to regenerate? Also a link to colours – Scarlet to Pink. Then I thought it was just a McGuffin to explain things without resorting to ‘Reverse the polarity’
12 October 2014 at 09:50 #33424@phaseshift – Putting aside you own displeasure for the moment, can you possibly live with the fact that you can’t speak for me?
12 October 2014 at 07:31 #33418@melloyello – Although I think you are perhaps a bit harsh with you choice of words, I tend to agree with your sentiment. I think Clara is dragging this series down and is only there because she is such a feast for the eyes. The whole Danny Pink thing is tedious and, like you, I feel that Moffat’s attempts to pull me in to a long story arc has backfired. I find the duality of the doctor being good/bad annoying and think Capaldi deserves better. I would like to see the end of Clara/Danny along with all daytime soap scenarios. Capaldi needs to put his foot down and say ‘this isn’t good enough’
28 September 2014 at 08:47 #32605A few thoughts. I agree that there was a definite ‘soap’ element to this episode. The robot/monster was merely a plot device and served no real purpose other than to set this episode in the school. I’ve had a few odd theories about Danny and this episode made them appear slightly less mad. He is now ‘officially’ Clara’s love interest and has the same permanent cast standing as every member of Security who beamed down to a new planet at the beginning of countless Star Trek episodes. As such, he will undoubtedly meet an untimely death, possibly in the Christmas special. Here are my odd thoughts. Danny may not actually be Danny at all. This episode has elements of Listen and Family of Blood. In Listen, The Doctor says something about an image appearing in the corner of your eye or in a reflection in a mirror. This recalls the punishment he dispenses to one of the Family of Blood when she is imprisoned in a mirror and we are told she will be appear in all mirrors. Also in Listen, Danny says something about having to deal with ‘family’ business.
What if Danny is/will be inhabited by the Family of Blood? Would the Doctor be forced to kill him? Would Clara every recover from this or trust the Doctor again? That’s a good excuse to leave the series and an excellent cliffhanger. One other thing. At the end of Family of Blood, The Doctor tries to convince yer wummin to go with him but she asks him a question along the lines of ‘If you hadn’t come here, on a whim, would anyone have died?’ He can’t give her the answer she wants and so they part. We now have two companions (and a mini companion) all leading seperate, ‘normal’ lives in the same school which suggests the Doctor will be returning there. People have already died and it is likely more will follow. Will Clara end up asking The Doctor the same question? Will that result in the same outcome?
21 September 2014 at 22:23 #32333Another ‘Most Secure Vault In The World / Galaxy / Universe’ plot where there are no guards and anyone can access anywhere by pulling off an oversized vent in the air conditioning system and simply walking in. A bit more imagination in the writing, please.
2 January 2014 at 10:07 #23806Yes, I am well aware that laughing at Hitler has been used in the past by some very funny people. It can be very effective in the right setting. Regrettably, Dr Who is not a suitable setting and neither is it a comedy show. This episode, by it’s rather frivolous treatment of Hitler, has set a bench mark for the future incorporation of any similar historical figures. Poor comedy involving a mass murderer is not satire and it is not effective in dealing with their crimes. I stand by my earlier comments. Not clever. Not funny. And most definitely not needed
1 January 2014 at 10:08 #23761I think you have to be careful when you bring historical people to the show. They got it right with Dickens but they got it completely wrong with Hitler. To incorporate this loathsome, vile, murderous man in a Dr Who episode may have worked if they were to confront the real horrors he brought to the world. Instead he is used as a straight man in a poor comedy comedy routine and then locked in a cupboard. Why not just place him on the naughty step and take away his favourite toy?
Not clever. Not funny. Not needed.
29 December 2013 at 10:42 #23587“Well, an element of conflict in any discussion’s a very good thing. It means everybody is taking part and nobody left out. I – I like that”.
29 December 2013 at 06:36 #23578Loved this episode. One of the very best. If Samuel Beckett had ever written a Who story – this would have been it.
29 December 2013 at 06:31 #23577Is Tasha Lem the next Doctor after Peter Capaldi?
The idea of a female Doctor has been about for quite a while. One way of limiting the ‘outrage’ factor would be to for her to be already known to the viewers. I think, reading through the comments, that many folk think Tasha Lem will be back in one form or another. Bit of a leap though, but what is a forum for if not idle speculation about what might occur in the future?
28 December 2013 at 07:19 #23505Going back to Tasha Lem. Did she pass something to the doctor? Look at the unusual camera angle as the Doctor sits on the bed/altar. She gives him a goblet/chalice, from which he swigs. Tasha Lem then takes the goblet/chalice and passes very close to his face as she stretches to place it on the end of the bed/altar. The camera angle is almost directly behind her so her head is blocking his face. Does she kiss him and, in doing so, pass sosmething in to his mouth? Why the goblet? Why does he drink so readily? Why the strange camera angle? And another thing, why emphasise that Tasha Lem is an old friend? AsI suggested before, Tasha Lem is an anagram of The Lamas. As some-one pointed out earlier, the part wes very well defined and very well acted. I think we will see Tasha Lem in the next series, possibly as a reincarnation of herself. Mind you, I thought the same about The Doctor’s Wife
26 December 2013 at 09:44 #23393Being a bit of an anorak, but did anyone else spot that Tasha Lem is an anagram of The Lamas? Does it mean anything? A quote from a comment on A Nightmare in Silver – (reminded me a little of Tibetan Buddhism. ‘reincarnated Lamas are thought to have the memories of previous incarnations, recognising old toys etc, but are not expected to have the same personality).
Remind you of anyone else?
26 December 2013 at 07:45 #23390I regret to say I found it very disappointing. Will need to rewatch but initial thoughts were: fell in to the trap of most Christmas specials – overblown, overstretched and most definitely overhyped. Basically, the doctor hides in the basement for hundreds of years and not a single arch enemy can find or destroy him? In all that time he couldn’t think of a solution or even to think to ask for help? The attempts to be seasonal – a town called Christmas – an old man making toys – was laboured; and the parody of the Catholic church – Papal Main Frame, confessional Silence – was unhelpful and unwelcome. The cameo at the end is now a predictable ploy to be both esoteric and emotional. The last fifteen minutes picked things up a bit but, in general, it was poorly judged.
4 August 2013 at 19:37 #15194Excellent choice. Well done.
4 August 2013 at 08:25 #15035How’s this for a bonkers idea? The moment arrives on the live show for the new Doctor to be revealed. The curtain is pulled back and out steps the first Doctor. David Bradley in full Hartnell costume. A regeneration within a regeneration sort of thing. I think it would be a masterstroke and would appeal to everyone – a real regeneration of the Doctor. What could be more fitting than having the first Doctor return for the 50th anniversary? How is it explained ? – well timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff.
Just a thought.
26 July 2013 at 07:05 #14415I would have thought that David Bradley putting in an appearance as the Hartnell Doctor was a good bet. We’ve seem the photos and we know the BBC have filmed An Adventure in Space and Time. They’ve got the Doctor, the set, and daleks. The 50th anniversary without the original Doctor seems a little, well, pointless. Just a thought
-
AuthorPosts
