The Doctor Appreciation thread

1303132333436»

Comments

  • blutobluto Posts: 733
    I think the same thing goes for capaldi it would have been nice to see him in some darker more dramatic episodes that would have let him shine in the lead role
  • lwaveslwaves Posts: 179

    bluto said:

    I think the same thing goes for capaldi it would have been nice to see him in some darker more dramatic episodes that would have let him shine in the lead role

    When his era started, that's what I thought we were going to get and it seemed to dip it's toe in but not much more. I still liked what we did get, it simply went a different route to what I thought.

  • DodgerDodger Posts: 190
    edited August 12
    AlphaCentauri.png
    762 x 1024 - 809K
    Post edited by Dodger on
  • RedfernRedfern Posts: 1,397
    edited August 12

    Fun fact, in the 2017 episode "Empress of Mars", Alpha Centauri appears briefly upon a video screen. For that sequence, the BBC hired the original voice performer, Ysanne Churchman, to reprise her role. She was 92 at that time and still sounded the same!

    The figure can also be easily modified to depict "B" movie monsters.  Here I hid the eye and inserted teeth, turning the eye socket into a mouth.  "Ace" Neutron takes it upon himself to "protect the spaceways", blissfully unaware this "monster" is actually a "protected species".  Looks like Ace will have to answer to a board of inquiry! surprise

    Ajax-Spaceman-J-2.jpg
    800 x 600 - 101K
    Post edited by Redfern on
  • DodgerDodger Posts: 190

    Re: people complaining about Chris Chibnall and  claiming that a multiple BAFTA-award winning writer and showrunner and the brilliance behind Broadchurch is "not a good writer": 

    So the one with destroyed future Earth was a bit anvilicious? No more than The Power of Kroll.

    So the one with the giant spiders was silly? Less than the one with the giant spiders that killed the Third Doctor and led to a yellowface actor pretending to be a buddhist priest looking like Jerry Lewis was trying to outdo Andy Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's, and that was somehow necessary for regeneration into the fourth.

    Chibnall never claimed the moon was a giant dragon egg. Chibnall never put robots in Sherwood Forest. Chibnall never had the TARDIS *towing Earth*. Chibnall never made wooden cybermen with flamethrowers. And while Chibnall DID put dinosaurs on a spaceship—that was actually the fun kind of silly.

    Chibnall is actually a really good writer.

    And much like people complained that Deep Space 9 wasn't what Roddenberry intended and that Ronald D Moore was a bad hack, I fully expect Chibnall to go on to something else still sci-fi and gain critical acclaim as Moore did for BSG. Even if people complain about the finale.

  • backgroundbackground Posts: 174

    Is this series still going? I gave up on it when Capaldi left.

  • lwaveslwaves Posts: 179

    Dodger said:

    Re: people complaining about Chris Chibnall and  claiming that a multiple BAFTA-award winning writer and showrunner and the brilliance behind Broadchurch is "not a good writer": 

    So the one with destroyed future Earth was a bit anvilicious? No more than The Power of Kroll.

    So the one with the giant spiders was silly? Less than the one with the giant spiders that killed the Third Doctor and led to a yellowface actor pretending to be a buddhist priest looking like Jerry Lewis was trying to outdo Andy Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's, and that was somehow necessary for regeneration into the fourth.

    Chibnall never claimed the moon was a giant dragon egg. Chibnall never put robots in Sherwood Forest. Chibnall never had the TARDIS *towing Earth*. Chibnall never made wooden cybermen with flamethrowers. And while Chibnall DID put dinosaurs on a spaceship—that was actually the fun kind of silly.

    Chibnall is actually a really good writer.

    And much like people complained that Deep Space 9 wasn't what Roddenberry intended and that Ronald D Moore was a bad hack, I fully expect Chibnall to go on to something else still sci-fi and gain critical acclaim as Moore did for BSG. Even if people complain about the finale.

    All of which is nothing more than your opinion. Being a BAFTA winning writer doesn't mean their writing will always be of that standard. Every writer has lesser moments and failures, even the best writers that ever existed. The points you bring up don't prove that he's a good writer, if anything it does the opposite because while those plot points could be considered poor, those writers had high moments to counter them. For every negative you throw out against the other showrunners, it can be equalled with one from Chibnall. He put three companions in there, one of which was mostly useless and very underwritten, usually Yaz. Also with Yaz, what was the point of her being in the police? It's barely used and never when it's most needed (i.e. Spiders In The UK). Why, in his first season,  does the Doctor repeat what someone has has just said but in more detail, just to make her seem smarter, when we've already understood it. I could go on. So where's Chibnall's high moments? It's telling that you can only highlight negatives of others without higlighting anything truly positive of Chibnall's.

    To go against your examples of Kill The Moon with it's dragon egg, Robot of Sherwood (which I personally like as a bit of silly fun that you mention) and towing the Earth, those same showrunners also gave us big high moments. So where's Chibnall's Blink, his Silence in The Library, his The Empty Child/Doctor Dances, his Weeping Angels monster? Where's his Human Nature/Family Of Blood or Midnight? They don't exist. Chibnall has certainly had a few highlights but nothing on the scale of the ones I mention. He has minor blips, not spikes or a maintained level of quality.

    All of which is my opinion but also that of the general opinion regarding the show. You can like Chibnall and his writing all you like, that's fine it's your call but it doesn't change the fact of how his writing and version of DW has been received on the whole. For the record, I actually agree with you that Chibnall is a good writer. He simply isn't a good DW writer. :-)

  • lwaveslwaves Posts: 179

    background said:

    Is this series still going? I gave up on it when Capaldi left.

    Yes. There's a new season coming later this year, followed by 3 specials next year. After that, there's a new Doctor and showrunner taking over.

  • DodgerDodger Posts: 190

    " He put three companions in there, one of which was mostly useless and very underwritten, usually Yaz."

    Sort of like Susan, Ian, and Barbara.

    (Don't even pretend Susan was ever useful. The best thing she ever did was maybe inspire the invention of the sonic screwdriver: after she was gone there was a void of high pitched screeching in The Doctor's lives.)

    Fact is, not only is Chris Chibnall a good writer in general, he's also specifically very good Doctor Who writer.

    Also, he wrote the episode Cyberwoman, from Torchwood. The ending of which was basically a distillation of all Poser art.

  • speaking as a long term Who fan... no. chibnal is not a good fit for the show (and that episode cyberwoman was a mess, both logically - Cybus version cybermen only want the Brain. Mondasian Cybermen do the body conversion....., and storywise - Cyber brain control is from when fitted.. not months afterwards... oh and Cybermen fitted a Bikini??? no... (and yes there's a difference in the Cybermen not just the models)  .) I think he's a good writer for things like crime.. but frankly the last couple of seasons have wasted the talents of Calpaldi and Whittaker. bad scripts. some had promise.. but were handled badly. a lot of the scripts should have beed sent back for rewrites.....

     

  • nelsonsmithnelsonsmith Posts: 1,280
    edited September 4

    lwaves said:

    bluto said:

    I think the same thing goes for capaldi it would have been nice to see him in some darker more dramatic episodes that would have let him shine in the lead role

    When his era started, that's what I thought we were going to get and it seemed to dip it's toe in but not much more. I still liked what we did get, it simply went a different route to what I thought.

    For my money Capaldi is the equivalent of Ben Alfleck Batman,  watching him in the role was all you needed to know that given the proper script he could easily have been one of the best if not the best iteration of that character,  but unfortunately he never got that script.  Capaldi at least got a few stories where we really got to see that brilliance shine through, but he never really got that satisfying story arc that cemented it the way previous Doctor's had.  It was if the showrunners never really had a fixed idea of who the Capaldi Doctor was until it was practically over. 

    Post edited by nelsonsmith on
  • DodgerDodger Posts: 190

    You all realise Chibnall wasn't Capaldi's writer, right?

    He is a great Doctor Who writer, but not Capaldi's. Someone else is to blame for that moon is an egg crap. 

  • yup I do know. and I still maintain Calpaldi's talents were wasted.

     

  • Time for a reminder that we do not allow "religious" debates

  • lwaveslwaves Posts: 179
    edited September 7

    Dodger said:

    " He put three companions in there, one of which was mostly useless and very underwritten, usually Yaz."

    Sort of like Susan, Ian, and Barbara.

    (Don't even pretend Susan was ever useful. The best thing she ever did was maybe inspire the invention of the sonic screwdriver: after she was gone there was a void of high pitched screeching in The Doctor's lives.)

    Fact is, not only is Chris Chibnall a good writer in general, he's also specifically very good Doctor Who writer.

    Also, he wrote the episode Cyberwoman, from Torchwood. The ending of which was basically a distillation of all Poser art.

    Yes, others have put three companions in the show, of which Susan may have been useless (I don't remember Hartnell's episodes that well). The same could probably be argued for the Fifth Doctor too. That doesn't make Chibnall a good DW writer, it makes him as bad as the others. Chibnall being a good DW writer (or not) is not 'fact', it is opinion. Cyberwoman is generally considered a terrible episode and while people are free to like it, as that's what different opinions are, it doesn't back up any argument that Chibnall is a good writer. If Chibnall was good for DW, his episodes would be perceived much better than they are. Yet they're not, with the possible exception of Fugitive Of The Judoon, which he co-wrote.

    It will be interesting to see what he does with a single, series long story as that seems to be where he's stronger (i.e. Broadchurch). I hope it's great and addresses the problems I had with the previous series (mainly the last episode) but I can't deny that I'll be glad when Chibnall is out.

    Post edited by Richard Haseltine on
Sign In or Register to comment.