New Doctor Who

[LariatTom]

Anyone else think that because time can be re-written it'll turn out to be Rory killed by River Song?

 

I can't help but think the 'greatest man she ever knew' will be her dad.

 

I've had this suspicion for quite a while actually. If it turns out to be true, it'll be a great shame because Arthur Darvill has been absolutely fantastic during this series. But yeah, "the greatest man she ever knew" would point towards being her father.

 

Was there anything said in the first episode about the Doctor's death being a fixed point in time? I know that sort of thing has cropped up a few times in Doctor Who saying that certain events are destined to happen and can't be rewritten (or shouldn't), but I still think that someone has to die during the finale in an attempt to save the Doctor. For me, that means we either see the end of River Song or Rory the Roman.

 

In "Let's Kill Hitler" the little people inside the robot said his death was a fixed point in time.

 

I knew it had been mentioned somewhere, I just couldn't remember where it was. Thanks for pointing that out!

[Loki]

Can I just say, that I watched this weekend's episode of Doctor Who (probably only the 3rd time I've watched one since the reboot) and it was one of the most awful, cringeworthy pieces of shit I've ever seen? I loved Dr Who when I was a kid, I really did, but the new series are just SO low-rent, it's excruciating.

[andrew "the ref" coyne]

Can I just say, that I watched this weekend's episode of Doctor Who (probably only the 3rd time I've watched one since the reboot) and it was one of the most awful, cringeworthy pieces of shit I've ever seen? I loved Dr Who when I was a kid, I really did, but the new series are just SO low-rent, it's excruciating.

 

Although I generally disagree with you and think your being a little OTT, I can perfectly understand where your coming from. In fact (IMO) the second half of the season was no where near as good as the first half or even last season, and believe can be attributed to the sometimes "cheap" feel of the show.

 

Shame really. Mind you regardless of how cheap it can seem sometimes, at least Doctor Who's attention to long term storylines and mystery pisses all other convoluted series such as Lost and The Event (awaits flaming).

[ReturnOfTheMack]

Yeah the second half has really been a let down for me. On the other hand I really enjoyed the Hitler episode and I found this one quite good. Amazingly I didnt even hate James Cordon.

[Smeg_&_The_Heads]

Amazingly I didnt even hate James Cordon.

 

Me to usually I can't stand the guy same goes for Catherine Tate but in Doctor Who I actually liked them.

 

In fact the only person I really can't stand even in Doctor Who was her from Eastenders/Bionic Woman from the "Planet of the Dead" episode.

[Vamp]

Can I add to the list of people who feel let down by this series. Oddly I think some of the episodes have been great, but the rest of them have been dull and cheap, and the constant promise that something better is around the corner has taken me right out of some of the current episodes. I know that's how story arcs work, but I'm not sure they've worked so well here.

[Daaaaaad!]

Can I just say, that I watched this weekend's episode of Doctor Who (probably only the 3rd time I've watched one since the reboot) and it was one of the most awful, cringeworthy pieces of shit I've ever seen? I loved Dr Who when I was a kid, I really did, but the new series are just SO low-rent, it's excruciating.

You watched Doctor Who when you were a kid... and you think the NEW series is low rent?

 

I'm calling bullshit on that. Go watch the old series and see people running down the same corridor away from a man in a tinfoil suit. I refuse to believe that you could suspend your disbelief for that but not the far sleeker new series.

 

That said, whilst your reasons are illogical, your conclusion that this week's episode was fairly low rent isn't far off the mark. This was probably the cheapest-looking episode of Who we've seen since 2005, save for the one where they never left the space bus.

[andrew "the ref" coyne]

Can I just say, that I watched this weekend's episode of Doctor Who (probably only the 3rd time I've watched one since the reboot) and it was one of the most awful, cringeworthy pieces of shit I've ever seen? I loved Dr Who when I was a kid, I really did, but the new series are just SO low-rent, it's excruciating.

You watched Doctor Who when you were a kid... and you think the NEW series is low rent?

 

I'm calling bullshit on that. Go watch the old series and see people running down the same corridor away from a man in a tinfoil suit. I refuse to believe that you could suspend your disbelief for that but not the far sleeker new series.

 

That said, whilst your reasons are illogical, your conclusion that this week's episode was fairly low rent isn't far off the mark. This was probably the cheapest-looking episode of Who we've seen since 2005, save for the one where they never left the space bus.

 

In all fairness to him, the standard of television is MUCH higher now and you can't fairly compare them like that. After all the old doctor who didn't have to compete with the insane high quality of a lot of American tv shows. Oddly enough, HD quality cameras now expose tv shows a lot more also (i.e. cheap models looking cheaper in HD).

 

I remember thinking how cheap season 7 (or was it 8?) of Red Dwarf was even though "technically" the quality of the sets, the quality of the cameras etc was much better. What I'm saying is that the standard we associate to tv (rightfully) increases as time goes by. Doctor Who "back in the day" might of looked steller compared to other tv shows of the day, but when modern TV shows (like the "new" Doctor Who) starts using CGI and models that are no where near as good as on other shows, it exposes itself as being "low rent".

Edited September 26, 2011 by andrew "the ref" coyne

[The Curious Orange]

A fair bit of this second half of this series has looked a lot cheaper than it has recently - there were reports Private Eye a while back about massive over spending on it previously and them having to cut costs - the sets and locations in the last 4 episodes tend to back that up a bit seeing as the hotel and alien hospital aren't the most complex sets to build and the other locations shoots have been a housing estate and department store (even a fair bit of those two were set inside character's houses)

[Loki]

Can I just say, that I watched this weekend's episode of Doctor Who (probably only the 3rd time I've watched one since the reboot) and it was one of the most awful, cringeworthy pieces of shit I've ever seen? I loved Dr Who when I was a kid, I really did, but the new series are just SO low-rent, it's excruciating.

You watched Doctor Who when you were a kid... and you think the NEW series is low rent?

 

I'm calling bullshit on that. Go watch the old series and see people running down the same corridor away from a man in a tinfoil suit. I refuse to believe that you could suspend your disbelief for that but not the far sleeker new series.

 

That said, whilst your reasons are illogical, your conclusion that this week's episode was fairly low rent isn't far off the mark. This was probably the cheapest-looking episode of Who we've seen since 2005, save for the one where they never left the space bus.

 

In all fairness to him, the standard of television is MUCH higher now and you can't fairly compare them like that. After all the old doctor who didn't have to compete with the insane high quality of a lot of American tv shows. Oddly enough, HD quality cameras now expose tv shows a lot more also (i.e. cheap models looking cheaper in HD).

 

I remember thinking how cheap season 7 (or was it 8?) of Red Dwarf was even though "technically" the quality of the sets, the quality of the cameras etc was much better. What I'm saying is that the standard we associate to tv (rightfully) increases as time goes by. Doctor Who "back in the day" might of looked steller compared to other tv shows of the day, but when modern TV shows (like the "new" Doctor Who) starts using CGI and models that are no where near as good as on other shows, it exposes itself as being "low rent".

 

Precisely. Back in the 80s there was nothing to compare it to - you might think it looks ropey now, but it was fuck-off scary at the time. There was a genuine sense of horror about a lot of Dr Who - there was a story set deep in these mines under the Dover cliffs where people kept disappearing, that has led to a fascination with underground horror ever since. There is however, nothing scary at all about fat bastard James Cordon running around a department store with faux-Hollywood action music burbling along incessantly in the background. Compared to its US counterparts, Dr Who looks, sounds, is acted and directed like a joke.

[Foale]

Can't say I've really noticed the episodes looking cheap myself, and I've personally really enjoyed this half of the series and the stories themselves have been some of the strongest and most engaging since the series' return.

 

However, I don't like how the Cybermen have been treated since they've returned. They constantly get jobbed out with little bother to the Doctor, and he himself never comes across as that arsed by them whenever they show up, especially recently. They're the second most high profile Doctor Who monster ever and are widely regarded as the scariest of all monsters by a lot of fans, and should be treated as such in my opinion. James Corden joking around saying "how was he supposed to know there'd be a Cyberman invasion today??" didn't sit well with me.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Foale

[DJ Kris]

I'm not getting the critism I'm afraid. Maybe it's because I've been really enjoying Doctor Who lately and have becme fairly engrossed in the story at times to notice any cheapness that may or may not have been creeping in. Either way it's a win for me!

[d-d-d-dAz]

Apparently the budget on some of the standalone episodes have been low because, not just general BBC cuts, but they've spent it all on the season finale. I still say Moffat's Who has far better, sleeker production values than both of RTD's incarnations (Eccles and Tennant).

[Kiffy]

I did read in private eye that the episode written by, I think, Neil tenant, they didn't have the budget to do a new alien for him, so they just went with one of the ode's, or whatever it was called, as they had it in the stock room. That doesn't speak wildly highly of it.

However, I quite like the new dr who, have done since it came back, it's not entirely fair to compare it to huge budget american shows like lost and the like cos it has a different demographic (kids, families, and nerds, rather than just nerds) but I still think it does the whole thing rather well.

[Chris B]

I did read in private eye that the episode written by, I think, Neil tenant, they didn't have the budget to do a new alien for him, so they just went with one of the ode's, or whatever it was called, as they had it in the stock room. That doesn't speak wildly highly of it.

 

That wasn't a cheap episode though (the Neil Gaiman one). By saving on the alien by reusing another one (in an episode essentially set in an intergalactic scrapyard), they were able to use the budget of that episode elsewhere.