BBC Television programmes  permalink

Doctor Who (1963-2013) General Discussion

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 3211
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2013

    A new thread for a new year-the Doctor's 50th Anniversary! Discuss the world's longest running Sci-Fi series here, and look out for news on the show at www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by redls52 (U2405538) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2013

    Looking forward to the new series, which is airing sometime in the Spring according to RT today ... It was the 13th of their 13 to watch in 2013 and promised more info as it became available... Hope no one is superstitious!
    Wonder if there will be a special on November 23rd

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2013

    Looking forward to the new series, which is airing sometime in the Spring according to RT today ... It was the 13th of their 13 to watch in 2013 and promised more info as it became available... Hope no one is superstitious!
    Wonder if there will be a special on November 23rd 
    The Anniversary Special is confirmed according to Matt Smith in the latest Doctor Who Magazine, and since November 23rd is a Saturday, it seems pretty much certain that'll be the day.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2013

    Found this interesting, but sadly it appears only our Colonial brethren in New Zealand will get the benefit...

    www.skytv.co.nz/Defa...

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2013

    A new thread for a new year-the Doctor's 50th Anniversary! Discuss the world's longest running Sci-Fi series here, and look out for news on the show at www.bbc.co.uk/progra... 
    Main Doctor Who website here:

    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

    Old (now closed) Doctor Who general discussion thread here

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Martyn (U14949330) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2013

    Looking forward to the new series, which is airing sometime in the Spring according to RT today ... It was the 13th of their 13 to watch in 2013 and promised more info as it became available... Hope no one is superstitious!
    Wonder if there will be a special on November 23rd 
    The Anniversary Special is confirmed according to Matt Smith in the latest Doctor Who Magazine, and since November 23rd is a Saturday, it seems pretty much certain that'll be the day. 
    There's also going to be a docudrama written by Mark Gatiss which will tell the story of the creation of "Doctor Who". I expect that will also air around November time.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by the_cleaner (U3423083) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2013

    Wasn't looking for anything on Dr Who, but just this minute, found this great page:
    www.cabletv.com/doct...

    smiley - cool

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Phrasmotic 4 August 2012 (U5509534) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2013

    Looking forward to the new series, which is airing sometime in the Spring according to RT today ... It was the 13th of their 13 to watch in 2013 and promised more info as it became available... Hope no one is superstitious!
    Wonder if there will be a special on November 23rd 
    The Anniversary Special is confirmed according to Matt Smith in the latest Doctor Who Magazine, and since November 23rd is a Saturday, it seems pretty much certain that'll be the day. 
    There's also going to be a docudrama written by Mark Gatiss which will tell the story of the creation of "Doctor Who". I expect that will also air around November time. 
    Now THAT is worth looking forward to. Another multi doctor story would also be good.

    My three scary moments:

    The end of the very first episode: a hairy figure in the corner of the screen.

    The start of the daleks (but before you see them). Barbara goes down a corridor of sliding doors which close behind her. Finally, trapped, she gazes in terror at something as yet unknown...

    Blink

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by March Hare (U14471018) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2013

    Tom Baker in Pyramids of Mars - ahhh, happy memories.


    Either Damian Lewis or Tom Goodman-Hill for next Dr. Great actors (and both handsome redheads. He deverves to be ginger arfter all this time smiley - winkeye)

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by March Hare (U14471018) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2013

    deverves 

    I meant 'deserves' of course. Must take more water with it.... smiley - bubbly

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Wasn't looking for anything on Dr Who, but just this minute, found this great page:
    www.cabletv.com/doct...

    smiley - cool 
    Nice site. But where are Slipback, Doctor Who & the Seven Keys to Doomsday, Dimensions in Time, Shada, The Devil Goblins of Neptune, The Iron Legion... smiley - biggrin

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by St Meet me under the Mistletoe (U14314874) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Happy new year all,

    I will discuss something Dr'ish later, just marking the page.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    And a Happy New Year to you, too. We managed to survive 2012, so that's something (damn those Mayans and their scaremongering).

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by St Meet me under the Mistletoe (U14314874) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    i585.photobucket.com...

    So Tony, you didnt do this?

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by tt58 (U15556128) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Going nuts trying to figure out where to post that I hope we see more of River Song in the future. Since the relationship is timey wimey there's no reason she can't pop up.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by March Hare (U14471018) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Going nuts trying to figure out where to post that I hope we see more of River Song in the future. Since the relationship is timey wimey there's no reason she can't pop up. 

    In the name of Zog I really hope not. I loathed the River Song character. I thought that relationship was totally annoyingly wongily, awfully waffily, terribly werribly, slappily happily.... well you get the idea. smiley - grr

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    So you didn't like it then, is that what you're saying? smiley - biggrin

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by St Meet me under the Mistletoe (U14314874) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    But she does look good in jodpurs... from behind...

    I wouldnt mind seeing more of her... but maybe save it for Torchwood.... smiley - winkeye

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    I have a feeling you've much more chance of seeing River Song than you have of ever seeing Torchwood again...

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by St Meet me under the Mistletoe (U14314874) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Yes, torchwood last time was Dire.....

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Yes, torchwood last time was Dire.....

     
    I think it should probably have ended with Children of Earth. That was a natural stopping point. The American production was basically a different show and since I doubt Starz are in a hurry to produce any more, Russell T Davies seems uninterested in producing any more, and the BBC probably can't afford to produce any more, I'm guessing that's it for Cardiff's answer to The X-Files...

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by HabitualHero (U12983981) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    I have only one 2013 Dr Who wish and that is that no more of its past regular contributers, either from in front or behind the cameras, are lost to us. The last couple of years have been wretched in that respect.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    I have only one 2013 Dr Who wish and that is that no more of its past regular contributers, either from in front or behind the cameras, are lost to us. The last couple of years have been wretched in that respect.  I know. Nick Courtney, Lis Sladen, Carry John, Mary Tamm...far too many in too short a time, and often far to young too.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Amarantha (U14743209) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    My wish for 2013 is that they find the entire planet and population of Gallifrey concealed inside a hazelnut which is really the latest generation of super T A R D IS., and that the Time Lords are restored.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    I think it should probably have ended with Children of Earth. That was a natural stopping point. The American production was basically a different show and since I doubt Starz are in a hurry to produce any more, Russell T Davies seems uninterested in producing any more, and the BBC probably can't afford to produce any more, I'm guessing that's it for Cardiff's answer to The X-Files... 
    I think RTD was assuming that Miracle Day would be the springboard for his transition to the greener pastures of the USA but with it being a disaster both critically and popularly, that rather put pay to it and probably soured him toward the Torchwood franchise...

    In all honesty, Torchwood was never that good - the idea of a Doctor Who spin-off that would be aimed at adults remains a good one but what we ended up with felt as if it was written for 13 year old boys who haven't discovered Internet pornography.

    And even before Miracle Day, they had pretty much killed off the entire cast or put them on a bus... and then in true RTD fashion, despite having established that Captain Jack is off wondering the universe (at both the end of Children of Earth AND RTD's run on Doctor Who, no less) he's back at the start of Miracle Day and don't ask why.

    To get back to Doctor Who though... I am a fan of Moffat but I feel that his run as executive producer/headwriter has been very uneven and there have been a lot of episodes which had great potential that felt squandered... The pirate one comes to mind immediately. A wonderful set wasted on a very dreary and unoriginal story.

    And the past season of Ponds was just killing me... I get the idea behind it, the Ponds having a life and such but sorry, it just didn't work for me and it struck me as if even Moffat hadn't got a clue why he broke up Amy and Rory at the start of the season because that was resolved in the first episode and made you wonder why they even bothered having them being split up... or didn't just have them call it a day at the end of the last season.

    The Christmas Special was thus, a pleasant surprise for me... but Moffat is really going to need to up his game in terms of quality and more importantly CONSISTENCY if this is going to be a worthy 50th year.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    I really liked the Ponds. Having been close to someone exactly like Amy, I found her much more believable and sympathetic than any companion since 2005, and I thought Rory was great too. But they seem to have become the Marmite of Doctor Who: everyone either loves or hates them with very little in between. I wonder why.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by GusMcGuire (U7223549) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    I really liked the Ponds. Having been close to someone exactly like Amy, I found her much more believable and sympathetic than any companion since 2005, and I thought Rory was great too. But they seem to have become the Marmite of Doctor Who: everyone either loves or hates them with very little in between. I wonder why.   Well this is just me personally but I couldn't stand Amy but I did like Rory. Amy had her good moments - for me her highpoint was working out how to stop the weeping Angel in "Time of the Angels". I think perhaps it was simply because she was too possessive of the Doctor. I kept thinking "Oi! Hands off, girl!" I don't know if it's because he's a character I grew up with and I found her like a sort of interloper trying to keep him all to herself. The other thing that annoyed me about her was her trying to overtly jump the Doctor's bones (at the end of Flesh and Stone) when she was supposedly about to get married. That scene pretty much sealed my opinion of her and it didn't change much afterwards. Perhaps in years to come and with some repeat viewings she'll grow on me.

    For me, the best companion since 2005 was Donna - another Marmite character I guess and - for the same reason - because I personally knew someone very like her. For me Donna kept throwing in the lines that kept the Doctor grounded (e.g. Is that why you travel 'round with a human at your side? It's not so you can show them the wonders of the universe, it's so you can take cheap shots?). I liked her because she was older than the usual companion and therefore had a different outlook on life. She wasn't interested in him romantically (something that every other companion before and since has been) and it felt more like a straightforward adventure without all that romance nonsense.

    Anyway, to each their own. It would be a boring discussion if we all liked the same things.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    Amy was a deeply insecure person with abandonment issues trying to get some kind of validation from the Doctor by attempting to seduce him in that scene. I found that understandable and sympathetic given her life experience.

    Donna, I just found loud, annoying and rather thick. Like Rose before her, she was the kind of person I would have no interest in spending time with and would probably actively avoid.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013

    I really liked the Ponds. Having been close to someone exactly like Amy, I found her much more believable and sympathetic than any companion since 2005, and I thought Rory was great too. 
    Oh, don't get me wrong - I liked the Ponds too but they just felt played out and tacked on in the episodes before their departure. Hell, even the Daleks seemed to struggle to justify their abduction. Also, it really felt to me as if they built up that whole reveal to Amy's baby and then went "Oh, well - we can't mess with that because of timey wimey plot contrivance. Guess you'll just have to casually accept that you and Rory had a child stolen from you and only met her occasionally. Try never to mention this and just pretend it never happened."

    For a mother who had her baby taken, Amy seemed very blasé about the whole thing and it seemed such an anti-climax to have the Doctor run off by himself... And then to add insult to injury, we find out Amy has apparently been rendered infertile - oh, if only you were friends with someone that had access to a machine that could go anywhere in time and space so you could go and use advance medical technology to get that sorted out, eh? Never even suggested! Not even a Moffat timey-wimey technobabble reason they can't do it and given that it's the whole REASON for the break-up between Rory and Amy AND the fact that their relationship with the Doctor was pretty much the reason that their baby got stolen from them in the first place, it's truly baffling as to why the Doctor wouldn't even mention it...

    But they seem to have become the Marmite of Doctor Who: everyone either loves or hates them with very little in between. I wonder why. 
    I think a lot of people were put off Matt Smith by RTD's gigantic middle finger to Moffat that was The End Of Time, which did not to ease the transition between Tennent and Smith. Not that Moffat did himself any favours by giving us a new Doctor, Companion AND TARDIS in his first episode which I imagine was rather jarring for many...

    But with Amy, I suspect the fact she tried to jump the Doctor's bones in the first episode was rather vexatious to some.

    Donna, I just found loud, annoying and rather thick. Like Rose before her, she was the kind of person I would have no interest in spending time with and would probably actively avoid. 
    Ah, Chav 1 and Chav 2... I suppose you can at least say of Donna she wasn't a love sick puppy. Although, it's a toss up for who is worse. Probably Rose as she was around longer and got a contrived happy ending, whereas Donna got something more bittersweet.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 3rd January 2013


    Oh, don't get me wrong - I liked the Ponds too but they just felt played out and tacked on in the episodes before their departure. Hell, even the Daleks seemed to struggle to justify their abduction. Also, it really felt to me as if they built up that whole reveal to Amy's baby and then went "Oh, well - we can't mess with that because of timey wimey plot contrivance. Guess you'll just have to casually accept that you and Rory had a child stolen from you and only met her occasionally. Try never to mention this and just pretend it never happened."

    For a mother who had her baby taken, Amy seemed very blasé about the whole thing and it seemed such an anti-climax to have the Doctor run off by himself... And then to add insult to injury, we find out Amy has apparently been rendered infertile - oh, if only you were friends with someone that had access to a machine that could go anywhere in time and space so you could go and use advance medical technology to get that sorted out, eh? Never even suggested! Not even a Moffat timey-wimey technobabble reason they can't do it and given that it's the whole REASON for the break-up between Rory and Amy AND the fact that their relationship with the Doctor was pretty much the reason that their baby got stolen from them in the first place, it's truly baffling as to why the Doctor wouldn't even mention it...  
    See, I had absolutely no problem with any of that, possibly because I just have no empathy with kids and have never wanted them (an attitude my other half happily shares). My whole response to this was that it was a bit of a non-issue since Amy and Rory had no idea Amy was even expecting until shortly before the kid was taken, and had showed no real desperation to have one before that anyway. Besides, they knew Melody was River, they knew River turned out OK-it all just saved them a lot of hassle bringing her up and paying for her, surely?


    I think a lot of people were put off Matt Smith by RTD's gigantic middle finger to Moffat that was The End Of Time, which did not to ease the transition between Tennent and Smith. Not that Moffat did himself any favours by giving us a new Doctor, Companion AND TARDIS in his first episode which I imagine was rather jarring for many... 
    Why? It's hardly the first time it's happened in Doctor Who. remember the McGann movie, or Pertwee's first story? The programme is about change, it constantly evolves!

    But with Amy, I suspect the fact she tried to jump the Doctor's bones in the first episode was rather vexatious to some. 
    Not seeing that, either. Are people really so possessive over the Doctor? Get in there, my son!

    Ah, Chav 1 and Chav 2... I suppose you can at least say of Donna she wasn't a love sick puppy. Although, it's a toss up for who is worse. Probably Rose as she was around longer and got a contrived happy ending, whereas Donna got something more bittersweet. 
    I just found both exits boring.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    According to the final BARB figures, 9.87 million people watched Doctor Who's Christmas Day episode (not counting iplayer viewers or those who watched the BBC3 repeat). Only 5.75 million watched at 5.15 however; the other 4.12 million recorded it to watch later, making this episode the single most recorded British TV show ever (a record previously held by another episode of Doctor Who-The Impossible Astronaut, broadcast last year).

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by St Meet me under the Mistletoe (U14314874) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    Donna was one of my favourites, Rory was brilliant but unfortunatley he had to play off of Amy who was a bit variable for my liking.

    I did like Martha but that was mostly because I fancied her and would have jumped her given half the chance.

    I do not like the "love" interest in the Dr not at all.

    too much Kissing these days and he acts like its the first time naughty schoolboy act each time.... rather boring..

    I thought he was in Love with River, so why is he snogging the new companion like he has no one.. River is still alive....

    as for Amy being infertile, I agree, why couldnt he go to New new new new new new etc York before it went wrong and get her treated....


    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Amarantha (U14743209) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    Donna was one of my favourites, Rory was brilliant but unfortunatley he had to play off of Amy who was a bit variable for my liking.

    I did like Martha but that was mostly because I fancied her and would have jumped her given half the chance.

    I do not like the "love" interest in the Dr not at all.

    too much Kissing these days and he acts like its the first time naughty schoolboy act each time.... rather boring..

    I thought he was in Love with River, so why is he snogging the new companion like he has no one.. River is still alive....

    as for Amy being infertile, I agree, why couldnt he go to New new new new new new etc York before it went wrong and get her treated....


     
    Considering that he was a grandfather in 1963, he must have had some previous experience, unless they did it all in vitro on Gallifrey, which might explain his embarrassment.

    Donna was one of my favourites, of the more recent lot.

    Not keen on the jerky plots under S M. Prefer more character development and comprehensible plots. Don' t always watch it now as it annoys me to see an old favourite ruined. It is still good sometimes though.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    unless they did it all in vitro on Gallifrey 
    Some of the spinoff stuff after the show's original cancellation actually established something pretty similar to that, though New Who has since contradicted it.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Phrasmotic 4 August 2012 (U5509534) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    Plot possibility, in the hope that another multi-doctor one happens. The Tennant Dr and Martha get out of a taxi outside Sparrow & Nightingale DVD store. The Doctor is given a bunch of papers by a mysterious young woman he's never met called Sally Sparrow before going off ...... WHERE? They could use the footage from the end of Blink, without - sadly - asking Carey Mulligan to return, as she is now a huge Hollywood star and unlikely to be available.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    unless they did it all in vitro on Gallifrey 
    Some of the spinoff stuff after the show's original cancellation actually established something pretty similar to that, though New Who has since contradicted it. 
    I'm not sure it's been specifically contradicted, has it? It's all still rather vague. In any case, assuming you're referring to the novel Lungbarrow, it was implied pretty heavily that the Doctor was, in fact, born naturally, as he was the only member of the house of Lungbarrow who had a navel...

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by oporus (U14282506) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    The doctors new floozy seems to be his equal. Some kind of super being maybe. Welcome change to the flawed and needy characters of the past. Are we going to see a doctor's reunion, with a knees-up in the tardis maybe ? Or maybe another genocide on an intergalactic scale?

    I really can't wait.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Friday, 4th January 2013



    Not keen on the jerky plots under S M. Prefer more character development and comprehensible plots. 
    I haven't found any of the plots incomprehensible. But then, I watch every episode, which is basically a requirement if you want to keep up with what's happening. Possibly, this is where your problem lies?

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Amarantha (U14743209) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    No, my problem is I can not stand the way the scenes are only about 30 seconds long and there is no time to get involved with any of the characters, so I do not care what happens, and switch off.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    No, my problem is I can not stand the way the scenes are only about 30 seconds long and there is no time to get involved with any of the characters, so I do not care what happens, and switch off.  That is the way a lot of TV drama, at least the stuff aimed at a 'family' audience, is paced these days. It's aimed at an audience which for the last twenty years or so has been increasingly used to action movies and videogames where a lot of information is delivered very, very quickly in short snippets which cut very fast. Basically, a lot of TV isn't made the way it used to be because people's expectations and the way they watch have changed.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by St Meet me under the Mistletoe (U14314874) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    "a lot of TV isn't made the way it used to be because people's expectations and the way they watch have changed."

    Sadly true. Attention span isn't what it......

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    "a lot of TV isn't made the way it used to be because people's expectations and the way they watch have changed."

    Sadly true. Attention span isn't what it......

     
    That doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. The fact that a lot of younger viewers seem able to take in a lot of information delivered very quickly while older viewers complain that they can't, I think, has more negative connotations for the older viewers than the younger ones.

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Lee (U1149673) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    It's aimed at an audience which for the last twenty years or so has been increasingly used to action movies and videogames where a lot of information is delivered very, very quickly in short snippets which cut very fast. Basically, a lot of TV isn't made the way it used to be because people's expectations and the way they watch have changed.  
    This is true. I remember when EastEnders first started in 1985 it was praised by the critics (and the audience) for being fast moving, with short snappy scenes ... compared to the ITV soaps which were then still quite slow.

    In the DVD commentary for K9 and Company, Elisabeth Sladen is extremely critical of the direction of the episode, claiming it was far too slow, that the shots didn't change quickly enough and everything felt very old fashioned and staid. Compared to what she had experienced in The Sarah Jane Adventures she didn't think today's audience would stand for it now.

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    It's aimed at an audience which for the last twenty years or so has been increasingly used to action movies and videogames where a lot of information is delivered very, very quickly in short snippets which cut very fast. Basically, a lot of TV isn't made the way it used to be because people's expectations and the way they watch have changed.  
    This is true. I remember when EastEnders first started in 1985 it was praised by the critics (and the audience) for being fast moving, with short snappy scenes ... compared to the ITV soaps which were then still quite slow.

    In the DVD commentary for K9 and Company, Elisabeth Sladen is extremely critical of the direction of the episode, claiming it was far too slow, that the shots didn't change quickly enough and everything felt very old fashioned and staid. Compared to what she had experienced in The Sarah Jane Adventures she didn't think today's audience would stand for it now. 
    I've been watching Doctor Who since the 70s, but much as I love the classic stuff, a lot of it was very, very slow and padded out. Patrick Troughton's last story, The War Games, ran to ten episodes but I can still watch it and be enthralled by it because the action never lets up and the story just keeps moving at all times. The almost universally praised Genesis of the Daleks, on the hand-though it's an undoubted classic and contains ome genuinely powerful scenes-could easily have been made as a four rather than a six parter without the plot being diluted at all; it's a good two episodes too long and, when viewed in one sitting, really drags in the middle.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by St Meet me under the Mistletoe (U14314874) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    I think its important be be able to have, accept and process both methods. We are obsessed with the quick hit rather than with the slow build. We lack patience.

    I think we require "jolts" of pleasure these days, I think that gaining pleasure from something slowly over time is a learned response. But it's not really getting "taught" anymore.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    I think its important be be able to have, accept and process both methods. We are obsessed with the quick hit rather than with the slow build. We lack patience.

    I think we require "jolts" of pleasure these days, I think that gaining pleasure from something slowly over time is a learned response. But it's not really getting "taught" anymore.

     
    There is still room for both on TV. Something like Midsomer Murders still has that slower pace and works really well as what it is: a traditional, rather cosy "English murder" drama with a light touch. But then, programme makers aim different shows at different demographics. Doctor Who is a 'family' show, it has to try to appeal to all ages. I suspect the average Midsomer Murders fan is upwards of 35-40, and used to more traditional TV drama. They're not aiming it at kids, teens and twentysomethings as well, so there's less of a balance to be struck.

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by St Meet me under the Mistletoe (U14314874) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    True. I tired to read the Hobbit again the other day, I just couldnt. It was aimed too far below me. Yet I loved it as a child and have very fond memories.

    The Film was excellent. The Riddles in the Dark was an amazing part best acting I've seen in ages.

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    I was pleasantly surprised by the film myself. I found the LOTR trilogy a real slog to get through.

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    See, I had absolutely no problem with any of that, possibly because I just have no empathy with kids and have never wanted them (an attitude my other half happily shares). My whole response to this was that it was a bit of a non-issue since Amy and Rory had no idea Amy was even expecting until shortly before the kid was taken, and had showed no real desperation to have one before that anyway. Besides, they knew Melody was River, they knew River turned out OK-it all just saved them a lot of hassle bringing her up and paying for her, surely? 
    It's one thing to have no desire to have children or even an active dislike of them but this was a situation where we SAW Amy and Rory both very emotional and then a week later, they're fine and dandy... yes, they know it's River but you can't intellectualise the loss of a child just because of temporal shenanigans.

    Not to mention that the urgency with which one wants to have children is an entirely different proposition to having a child you had STOLEN. There's just no comparison between the two - you could have a flat out antipathy toward children and I'd still think that was obvious.

    Oh and the all-of-time-happening-at-once Amy was clearly vexed enough about this to straight up murder eye-patch woman... despite not mentioning it.

    Why? It's hardly the first time it's happened in Doctor Who. remember the McGann movie, or Pertwee's first story? The programme is about change, it constantly evolves! 
    I'm not denying the show can and should change with the times - I'm simply saying that after Tennant's schmaltz soaked departure it wouldn't have hurt to save the change of the TARDIS for a few episodes in, to ease the transition.

    Not seeing that, either. Are people really so possessive over the Doctor? Get in there, my son! 
    I would assume that from a fanatical Whovian such as yourself, that's at least a little tongue-in-cheek but if not - yes. Besides, beyond simply that it did two bad things... first off, it's another girl instantly wanting to jump the Doctor (and we already a few of those) and secondly, it doesn't exactly speak highly of Amy's character that she'd cheat on Rory the night before the wedding.

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Friday, 4th January 2013

    See, I had absolutely no problem with any of that, possibly because I just have no empathy with kids and have never wanted them (an attitude my other half happily shares). My whole response to this was that it was a bit of a non-issue since Amy and Rory had no idea Amy was even expecting until shortly before the kid was taken, and had showed no real desperation to have one before that anyway. Besides, they knew Melody was River, they knew River turned out OK-it all just saved them a lot of hassle bringing her up and paying for her, surely? 
    It's one thing to have no desire to have children or even an active dislike of them but this was a situation where we SAW Amy and Rory both very emotional and then a week later, they're fine and dandy... yes, they know it's River but you can't intellectualise the loss of a child just because of temporal shenanigans.

    Not to mention that the urgency with which one wants to have children is an entirely different proposition to having a child you had STOLEN. There's just no comparison between the two - you could have a flat out antipathy toward children and I'd still think that was obvious.

    Oh and the all-of-time-happening-at-once Amy was clearly vexed enough about this to straight up murder eye-patch woman... despite not mentioning it.

    Why? It's hardly the first time it's happened in Doctor Who. remember the McGann movie, or Pertwee's first story? The programme is about change, it constantly evolves! 
    I'm not denying the show can and should change with the times - I'm simply saying that after Tennant's schmaltz soaked departure it wouldn't have hurt to save the change of the TARDIS for a few episodes in, to ease the transition.

    Not seeing that, either. Are people really so possessive over the Doctor? Get in there, my son! 
    I would assume that from a fanatical Whovian such as yourself, that's at least a little tongue-in-cheek but if not - yes. Besides, beyond simply that it did two bad things... first off, it's another girl instantly wanting to jump the Doctor (and we already a few of those) and secondly, it doesn't exactly speak highly of Amy's character that she'd cheat on Rory the night before the wedding. 
    It doesn't have to "speak highly" of Amy's character; the point is, it was entirely IN character, and not because she's a slut. As I said, she's a character with self esteem isssues and abandonment issues. I found it believable, and the Doctor's response to it (trying to fix her and Rory) quite heartwarming.

    Still not seeing why the kid was such a big deal. Babies are noisy, smelly, and being virtually mindless they're boring company. If I were the Ponds, and had the opportunity to skip all that safe in the knowledge that my lost kid would re-enter my life almost immediately as the much more interesting Dr. Song, I'd be happy to go with it.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2014 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.