Jump to content
IGNORED

Doctor Who

FishyFish

By FishyFish
in Film, TV & Radio

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sprite Machine

Sprite Machine

Posted
Posted

No, it just looks like Moffat has gone back to the original (and better) idea, which was that they would encounter each other at random different points in their time streams, rather than in 'opposite order', which is what was semi-established since he started running the show.

Even so, I figured he would try to use her regeneration as a way of replacing the actress so he could keep the character alive forever. However, what the episode actually establishes is that, prior to Mel becoming River, she doesn't know the doctor at all. And prior to being Old Mel, she is Young Mel. And prior to that, she is Other Girl. Her whole life, going backwards, is now a known quantity (or at least her appearance is), and it's now impossible to have any more backwards relationship stuff, unless they just bring Alex Kingston again, which is sort of self-defeating, isn't it?

Seriously, anyone who doesn't watch this show on a weekly basis would be hopelessly lost. It's tying itself in ridiculous knots and needs to stop it.

Furthermore, anyone who does watch the show every week would surely wonder why shooting a post-regeneration woman didn't kill her, but shooting post-regeneration Doctor did kill him. Or was that different (post vs. during)?

Anyway, snappy writing saved the day. I did chortle at the ridiculousness of the Hitler sub-plot, and Rory's lines, and so on. Just... yeah. It's getting a bit mental.

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DeNeo

DeNeo

Posted
Posted

Furthermore, anyone who does watch the show every week would surely wonder why shooting a post-regeneration woman didn't kill her, but shooting post-regeneration Doctor did kill him. Or was that different (post vs. during)?

Yeah exactly that. He was shot while he was regenerating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NecroMorrius

NecroMorrius

Posted
Posted

Thing is, average people don't really follow it like that. Same goes for most TV. They just go with it instinctively and don't try to stick every plot point on a mental pinboard as they go along and scrutinise them for inaccuracy or contradiction. E.g. Try asking a casual Lost fan (who watched the whole thing) what actually happened, and you'll see what I mean.

For example, River Song shouts 'ha, ha, ha, you shot me while I was regenerating'. Most people just go 'right yep, that's fine' and think no more of it. It's only the pedants, the critics and the geeks who go through the labour of trying to match everything up afterward, so that it makes perfect sense in a logical, consistent way.

Saying that, it shouldn't be hard to write for both audiences and make sense whilst still surprising the viewer. Moffat's doing a better job than RTD though, if the current series of their respective shows are anything to go by :lol:

4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alex W.

Alex W.

Posted
Posted

Thing is, average people don't really follow it like that. Same goes for most TV. They just go with it instinctively and don't try to stick every plot point on a mental pinboard as they go along and scrutinise them for inaccuracy or contradiction. E.g. Try asking a casual Lost fan (who watched the whole thing) what actually happened, and you'll see what I mean.

For example, River Song shouts 'ha, ha, ha, you shot me while I was regenerating'. Most people just go 'right yep, that's fine' and think no more of it. It's only the pedants, the critics and the geeks who go through the labour of trying to match everything up afterward, so that it makes perfect sense in a logical, consistent way.

Saying that, it shouldn't be hard to write for both audiences and make sense whilst still surprising the viewer. Moffat's doing a better job than RTD though, if the current series of their respective shows are anything to go by :lol:

The trouble isn't that the last episode failed to be consistent with the overarcing ideas of Who, it's that it failed to do so while being wholly devoted to those same ideas, sinking into an ocean of plot twaddle that the "average" viewer couldn't care less about, like an incompetent escapologist disappearing into the Thames.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Cochese

Mr Cochese

Posted
Posted

Thing is, average people don't really follow it like that. Same goes for most TV. They just go with it instinctively and don't try to stick every plot point on a mental pinboard as they go along and scrutinise them for inaccuracy or contradiction. E.g. Try asking a casual Lost fan (who watched the whole thing) what actually happened, and you'll see what I mean.

It was a magic cave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Space Gibbon

Space Gibbon

Posted
Posted

Just watched Let's kill Hitler again this afternoon as my daughter wanted to and I still don't get what the meaning of Amelia reminding him of Fish Fingers and Custard was all about.

My only guess is that it reminded him of his own regeneration, leading him to realise that River's regeneration energy could save him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
omus

omus

Posted
Posted

He needed (as he said) someone to be brave for, someone he hadn't yet let down.

The Tardis was showing the image of Amelia, but without the personality, in the holographic interface. The fish fingers and custard was what was needed to remind him he could do things right and not give up. Whether that line was an imagining by the Dr. or the Tardis providing it, is another matter. The actual reason is as simple as needing a palpable reason not to give up and just die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sofasurfer

sofasurfer

Posted
Posted

My only guess is that it reminded him of his own regeneration, leading him to realise that River's regeneration energy could save him.

He needed (as he said) someone to be brave for, someone he hadn't yet let down.

The Tardis was showing the image of Amelia, but without the personality, in the holographic interface. The fish fingers and custard was what was needed to remind him he could do things right and not give up. Whether that line was an imagining by the Dr. or the Tardis providing it, is another matter. The actual reason is as simple as needing a palpable reason not to give up and just die.

Right....I think I was reading too much into the whole line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Made of Ghosts

Made of Ghosts

Posted
Posted

Thing is, average people don't really follow it like that. Same goes for most TV. They just go with it instinctively and don't try to stick every plot point on a mental pinboard as they go along and scrutinise them for inaccuracy or contradiction. E.g. Try asking a casual Lost fan (who watched the whole thing) what actually happened, and you'll see what I mean.

For example, River Song shouts 'ha, ha, ha, you shot me while I was regenerating'. Most people just go 'right yep, that's fine' and think no more of it. It's only the pedants, the critics and the geeks who go through the labour of trying to match everything up afterward, so that it makes perfect sense in a logical, consistent way.

Thing is, though, Doctor Who is a show where the characters are in deadly peril most of the time, and it sort of ruins the dramatic tension if they keep cheating death in unexpected ways. It's sci-fi so it can make its own rules, hence regenerating and so forth, and that's all well and good. But since then the rules have been amended so many times - you can only regenerate 12 times, but maybe that's not true, and you can regrow limbs within a certain time period (The Christmas Invasion), and you can choose not to regenerate (Last of the Time Lords), and some things kill you outright (Forest of the Dead), and you can redirect energy into any severed limbs you have lying around as long as you don't mind a clone of you renouncing all your moral principles (Journey's End), and if you get killed while regenerating you're in the shit (The Impossible Astronaut), but you're invincible for a short time afterwards (last week's) - all of these things have come completely out of the blue and as a result you start thinking not "oh no, the doctor's going to die" but "what are they going to make up this time".

I'm not watching with a pencil and notebook going "hang on that contradicts what happened in episode 17" (I have a laptop, it's easier), but that's sort of the point - if you have to keep track of that much stuff to work out who's going to live or die, the emotional impact gets lost. I think this was the episode I started to get quite annoying at Moffat's plotting style. I hope he starts reining it in a bit.

6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mogster

Mogster

Posted
Posted

and some things kill you outright (Forest of the Dead)

Or indeed Turn Left, unless there's an earlier example I'm forgetting about. Supposedly you're not actually invincible after regenerating either, you just heal really quickly, to the point where you can regrow severed limbs.

Doctor Who's no stranger to changing its own rules, but I have enough trust in Moffat as a writer not to resort to pulling something out of his arse RTD style when it comes to the Doctor's death on the beach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprite

sprite

Posted
Posted

Watched Planet of the Dead for the first time yesterday, or part of it. I'd forgotten how utterly cheesy and over-the-top RTD Who was :facepalm: It's like he would spend all his time, effort and money on boring 'chases' through London whilst neglecting any form of story. I was so bored watching the episode, aside from getting to look at the gorgeous DT of course. All about additional nobodies that there wasn't time to care about. One thing Moffat really does get right is that the only people ever really central to the story are the Doc and his companions, and where there are extra characters who actually have a significant part to play, they're kept to a minimum and they have time to develop their own personality (e.g. The Lodger, Canton).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprite

sprite

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I was sure it River but now I just don't know. It's going to be something weird and timey wimey. I bet it's the Doctor.

I don't think it can be.

Surely she had already killed the Doctor, so then had no need to track him down and kill him again with poison? River does kill The Doctor, and we saw her do that in Let's Kill Hitler, technically. Not sure that's the man she goes to prison for killing though because she's all archaeology-ish now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnC

JohnC

Posted
Posted

Another annoying little thing I was reminded of while watching Torchwood. Cars driving down the street blowing their horn for no reason as they pass completely normally. They're not even actually doing it, but the sound is added later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lordcookie

lordcookie

Posted
Posted

Having now caught up with Let's Kill Hitler I can safely say I thought it was the worst Moffat scripted episode yet. It was so bitty and rushed with none of the emotional moments having any impact whatsoever. There were some decent ideas in the episode but the execution was severely lacking: River Song was at her most irritating (the longer the series goes on the more she is challenging Captain Jack for most annoying reoccurring character) and Mels was shit too. Even the ever reliable Matt Smith was poor and the music was terrible. Thank god for Rory then who had by far the best lines.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hexx

Hexx

Posted
Posted

I don't even...

I can't even...

WTF is this SHIT? It's got to the point where I can't even explain how dire Torchwood is. There's just so much fundementally wrong with it. In terms of story, writing, dialogue, production, logic...it's just wrong. I can't believe that someone was actually prepared to present this as something they created.

I just do not understand how no one involved never went "Hey. This is rather shit isn't it?". I just don't understand...

So it all comes down to the world's butt crack, which wants Jack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept