I like Matt Smith too. But I'm really starting to go off Steven Moffatt's vision of the show. The duplo Daleks, the upcoming horrific redesign of the Silurians and now the Weeping Angels are defeated by throwing them into the McGuffin from another episode. That we haven't even seen yet.
And does anyone else think that it's inappropriate in a family show for one of the heroes to have such a casual attitude towards infidelity?
The new Dr Who, what do you think?
Not seen it yet, but yes.stufarq wrote:
And does anyone else think that it's inappropriate in a family show for one of the heroes to have such a casual attitude towards infidelity?
-
lazarus corporation
- Lord Protector
- Posts: 3428
- Joined: 09 May 2004, 17:42
- Location: out there on a darkened road
- Contact:
No. The purpose of the show is to entertain, not to lecture the viewer in the moral system of any particular religion or set of ethics.stufarq wrote:And does anyone else think that it's inappropriate in a family show for one of the heroes to have such a casual attitude towards infidelity?
-
timsinister
- The Oncoming Storm
- Posts: 4568
- Joined: 04 Jan 2005, 17:08
- Location: Newcastle
- Contact:
From a purely practical standpoint, a show that's now primarily aimed at pre-adolescents is going to be awkward to watch when it tries to shows characters being amorous in a bedroom setting. 
From a purely frothing fan-boy standpoint WHAT THE FRIED FOOKIN' FOOK IS GOING ON HERE?
From a purely frothing fan-boy standpoint WHAT THE FRIED FOOKIN' FOOK IS GOING ON HERE?
-
hellboy69
- Utterly Bastard Groovy Amphetamine Filth
- Posts: 844
- Joined: 15 Aug 2005, 12:45
- Location: The Shire
- Contact:
most enjoyable episode, even when it turned into Carry on Companion 
talking of which, for Weebs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoisPQqn ... r_embedded
talking of which, for Weebs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoisPQqn ... r_embedded
[quote="stufarq"]
And does anyone else think that it's inappropriate in a family show for one of the heroes to have such a casual attitude towards infidelity?[/quote as
Or for the Doctor to use the word "slutty" to describe those vampire women? Did make me raise an eyebrow a bit. If it's a kids show, as it is aimed at being, keep the language appropriate.
And does anyone else think that it's inappropriate in a family show for one of the heroes to have such a casual attitude towards infidelity?[/quote as
Or for the Doctor to use the word "slutty" to describe those vampire women? Did make me raise an eyebrow a bit. If it's a kids show, as it is aimed at being, keep the language appropriate.
"Vengeance. Justice. Fire and blood.."
-
weebleswobble
- Underneath the Rock
- Posts: 5875
- Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 06:57
- Location: The Bat-Milk Cave
- Contact:
I thank youhellboy69 wrote:most enjoyable episode, even when it turned into Carry on Companion
talking of which, for Weebs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoisPQqn ... r_embedded
‎"We will wear some very loud shirts. We will wear some very wrong trousers."
Yep. Same goes for the joke about giving Amy a seeing to. Cue lots of four year olds asking parents awkward questions.DeWinter wrote:Or for the Doctor to use the word "slutty" to describe those vampire women? Did make me raise an eyebrow a bit. If it's a kids show, as it is aimed at being, keep the language appropriate.stufarq wrote:
And does anyone else think that it's inappropriate in a family show for one of the heroes to have such a casual attitude towards infidelity?
Who said anything about lecturing? My point was that the subject shouldn't have been broached in a show of this nature.lazarus corporation wrote:No. The purpose of the show is to entertain, not to lecture the viewer in the moral system of any particular religion or set of ethics.
-
lazarus corporation
- Lord Protector
- Posts: 3428
- Joined: 09 May 2004, 17:42
- Location: out there on a darkened road
- Contact:
It's the same thing - by showing the "heroes" conforming to one particular moral code then the show is actively promoting that moral code by associating it with the heroes (the characters with whom you are supposed to identify).stufarq wrote:Who said anything about lecturing? My point was that the subject shouldn't have been broached in a show of this nature.lazarus corporation wrote:No. The purpose of the show is to entertain, not to lecture the viewer in the moral system of any particular religion or set of ethics.
Out of interest, do you have any problem with the oft-repeated fact that the Doctor is a thief (it is frequently mentioned in the series that he stole the Tardis from the Timelords)? Presumably the hero shouldn't have such a casual attitude towards property law?
At the risk of sounding like that reverend's daughter in the Simpsons it's just language that shouldn't be used in a children's show. If they want to aim it at kids with lunchboxes, and heavy, heavy merchandising, then yes, there's appropriate and otherwise. Innuendo can be funny in a kids programme if it's done properly. That made the Carry On films look positively subtle.lazarus corporation wrote: It's the same thing - by showing the "heroes" conforming to one particular moral code then the show is actively promoting that moral code by associating it with the heroes (the characters with whom you are supposed to identify).
Out of interest, do you have any problem with the oft-repeated fact that the Doctor is a thief (it is frequently mentioned in the series that he stole the Tardis from the Timelords)? Presumably the hero shouldn't have such a casual attitude towards property law?
Oh, he was tried, and found guilty of that ages ago. End of "The War Games". Lost a "life" and exiled to Earth. They let him off after he saved the universe from Omega. And he was also put on trial for genocide at one point, too.
Anyway..The Silurians..takes an effort to make creatures less realistic 40 years after they first appeared! If their backstory is done with a light hand they could be quite sympathetic.
"Vengeance. Justice. Fire and blood.."
-
weebleswobble
- Underneath the Rock
- Posts: 5875
- Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 06:57
- Location: The Bat-Milk Cave
- Contact:
Bring back Rose, then have a three-way 
‎"We will wear some very loud shirts. We will wear some very wrong trousers."
Just stick some wine gum lips on the end of a plank of wood. No-one will notice the difference, except the plank of wood can probably emote better..weebleswobble wrote:Bring back Rose, then have a three-way
"Vengeance. Justice. Fire and blood.."
-
weebleswobble
- Underneath the Rock
- Posts: 5875
- Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 06:57
- Location: The Bat-Milk Cave
- Contact:
who said anything about acting ?DeWinter wrote:Just stick some wine gum lips on the end of a plank of wood. No-one will notice the difference, except the plank of wood can probably emote better..weebleswobble wrote:Bring back Rose, then have a three-way
‎"We will wear some very loud shirts. We will wear some very wrong trousers."
-
markfiend
- goriller of form 3b
- Posts: 21181
- Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
- Location: st custards
- Contact:
Hey weebs, you might stand a chance with Billie Piper.
Going off her track record with Chris Evans she likes ginger cnuts
Going off her track record with Chris Evans she likes ginger cnuts
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
—Bertrand Russell
-
weebleswobble
- Underneath the Rock
- Posts: 5875
- Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 06:57
- Location: The Bat-Milk Cave
- Contact:
‎"We will wear some very loud shirts. We will wear some very wrong trousers."
They should probably stop lecturing us about not killing people too.lazarus corporation wrote:It's the same thing - by showing the "heroes" conforming to one particular moral code then the show is actively promoting that moral code by associating it with the heroes (the characters with whom you are supposed to identify).stufarq wrote:Who said anything about lecturing? My point was that the subject shouldn't have been broached in a show of this nature.lazarus corporation wrote:No. The purpose of the show is to entertain, not to lecture the viewer in the moral system of any particular religion or set of ethics.
Out of interest, do you have any problem with the oft-repeated fact that the Doctor is a thief (it is frequently mentioned in the series that he stole the Tardis from the Timelords)? Presumably the hero shouldn't have such a casual attitude towards property law?
It's intial premise was to teach kids science no ?
As for the Doctor as a thief, I believe the idea was that he didn't agree with the Timelords's directives regarding the universe and "borrowed" an older model of TARDIS who's chameleon circuit was broken.
He's not a "Han Solo" more a Cpt Mal (Firefly), he takes advantage of resources at hand for the greater good.
As for morals, I think one of the most powerful episodes I watched was when Teagan left Peter Davidison's Doctor in the Dalek episode. She says something to the effect of leaving when it wasn't fun anymore. Torchwood smashed this with Children On Earth, jesus what a mini series that was
The one thing I will give Matt Smith was in his debut where he confronts the bad guys and tells them how many enemies he's thwarted from Earth with nothing and we have a neat flashback and then he looks them in their eye and says "Run !"
As for the Doctor as a thief, I believe the idea was that he didn't agree with the Timelords's directives regarding the universe and "borrowed" an older model of TARDIS who's chameleon circuit was broken.
He's not a "Han Solo" more a Cpt Mal (Firefly), he takes advantage of resources at hand for the greater good.
As for morals, I think one of the most powerful episodes I watched was when Teagan left Peter Davidison's Doctor in the Dalek episode. She says something to the effect of leaving when it wasn't fun anymore. Torchwood smashed this with Children On Earth, jesus what a mini series that was
The one thing I will give Matt Smith was in his debut where he confronts the bad guys and tells them how many enemies he's thwarted from Earth with nothing and we have a neat flashback and then he looks them in their eye and says "Run !"
End of line.
-
timsinister
- The Oncoming Storm
- Posts: 4568
- Joined: 04 Jan 2005, 17:08
- Location: Newcastle
- Contact:
Apart from when they press the Reset button and bring everyone back to life, a la Flesh and Stone last week.stufarq wrote: They should probably stop lecturing us about not killing people too.
The Doctor's moral ambiguity is usually tied in to the overarching moral code of the story. He usually acts in terms of the Greater Good, but its relativity adjusts, going from exterminating the Vervoids in Terror of the Vervoids, all the way up to wiping out the greater part of Gallifrey and the Dalek Empire. Ultimately the universe benefits.
That was part of its remit but its main purpose was to create a family show that would bridge the gap between kids' and adults' programmes and have the whole family watching together, family values being a big priority back in 1963.spot778 wrote:It's intial premise was to teach kids science no ?
Different show, different morals. But yes, unlike the rest of Torchwood, the mini-series was excellent.spot778 wrote:Torchwood smashed this with Children On Earth, jesus what a mini series that was
Um, when did they do that? Everyone who'd died over the course of the story was either still dead or had never existed by the end. No reset. There was, however, a ridiculous reset a couple of years ago in The Last Of The Time Lords.timsinister wrote: Apart from when they press the Reset button and bring everyone back to life, a la Flesh and Stone last week.
-
Maisey
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: 28 Jun 2006, 20:19
- Location: Moving like a Parallelogram
I enjoyed the knob gags.
I thought the episode was ok, apart from the fact that they EXPLODED a 15 foot killer lobster with a hand mirror.
On a deeper level I thought it was very poor.
In this episode the Doctor was effectively wiping out an entire race for the crime of doing what they they had to do in order to preserve survive. The episode could have focused on the alien's desperate struggle, doing what they had to do to ensure the continuation of their own race. Instead they were 2 dimensional villains that cackled manically every time they killed someone off. It was also inconsistent, to illustrate I'll look at an earlier episode.
In The Beast Below. The people on the Starship were horrendously torturing a kind and intelligent creature into insanity out of sheer ignorance, and the Doctor let them off scot free. In this episode, a group of water creatures sees their home world lost in an inter dimensional catastrophe - they mess with a couple of human beings AND HE WIPES OUT THEIR ENTIRE SPECIES.
This in itself was pretty disappointing, considering what I've come to expect from DW in the last few series, e.g. the wonderfully emotive way in which the horror of the Time War and The Doctor's grief were illustrated, and the morale conundrums raised when he used his massive power to make decisions that would effect entire worlds.
Doctor Who could be a deeply philosophical program - and under Tenant it often was. It seems that the bar has been noticeably lowered in terms of food-for-thought type content. He's turned from an immensely wise space diplomat, using his powers to solve problems on a colossal scale to an amoral astro-moron quite happy to ignore/commit atrocities if some people are in danger or if the bad guys look nasty enough.
I thought the episode was ok, apart from the fact that they EXPLODED a 15 foot killer lobster with a hand mirror.
On a deeper level I thought it was very poor.
In this episode the Doctor was effectively wiping out an entire race for the crime of doing what they they had to do in order to preserve survive. The episode could have focused on the alien's desperate struggle, doing what they had to do to ensure the continuation of their own race. Instead they were 2 dimensional villains that cackled manically every time they killed someone off. It was also inconsistent, to illustrate I'll look at an earlier episode.
In The Beast Below. The people on the Starship were horrendously torturing a kind and intelligent creature into insanity out of sheer ignorance, and the Doctor let them off scot free. In this episode, a group of water creatures sees their home world lost in an inter dimensional catastrophe - they mess with a couple of human beings AND HE WIPES OUT THEIR ENTIRE SPECIES.
This in itself was pretty disappointing, considering what I've come to expect from DW in the last few series, e.g. the wonderfully emotive way in which the horror of the Time War and The Doctor's grief were illustrated, and the morale conundrums raised when he used his massive power to make decisions that would effect entire worlds.
Doctor Who could be a deeply philosophical program - and under Tenant it often was. It seems that the bar has been noticeably lowered in terms of food-for-thought type content. He's turned from an immensely wise space diplomat, using his powers to solve problems on a colossal scale to an amoral astro-moron quite happy to ignore/commit atrocities if some people are in danger or if the bad guys look nasty enough.
Nationalise the f**king lot.
Any more of that and we'll be round your front door with the quick-setting whitewash and the shaved monkey.
-
markfiend
- goriller of form 3b
- Posts: 21181
- Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
- Location: st custards
- Contact:
I didn't know that Pterry was anti-equality. But he's damn right about Dr Who.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
—Bertrand Russell
Just read all the really very deep, articulate and extremely thought provoking posts on this thread that I started and is now on its 5th page, I must admit that the thread has gone further than I expected, I sense a really deep seated love/appreciation for the Dr Who franchise, not surprising really as it spans many generations, Ive always thought of it as just light entertainment and just let it wash over me really, but if I might take this thread back in the direction I thought it would go.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'd still really like to shag that slutty ginger burd , as you were. 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'd still really like to shag that slutty ginger burd
, as you were. Being brave is coming home at 2am half drunk, smelling of perfume, climbing into bed, slapping the wife on the arse and saying,"right fatty, you're next!!"