Peter Capaldi as The Doctor

edited September 2014 in Everything Else

So what do you guys think three episodes in? I've really liked Capaldi's take on it so far. The only thing that bothers me is I still think the stand-alone episodes (and episodes overall) are getting less and less memorable as the Moffat-era goes on. The Davies-era had far more down right embarrassing episodes, but also seemed to take more risks and have more really special episodes (I know a ton of the most loved ones were written by Moffat). Even so, looking at the episode list there are so few really memorable episodes recently. Last season was the 50th anniversary episode, The Angels Take Manhattan (if only because we lost Amy and Rory, but the weakest Angels-focused episode so far in my opinion) and that was about it. Season 6 had A Christmas Carol, the double episode opener which was cool, The Doctor's Wife which was fun, The Rebel Flesh/Almost People double episode which was brilliant and The Girl Who Waited. But go back to season 5 and I remember and like nearly every episode.

I don't know what happened. The Robin Hood episode was okay and fun I guess, but it really seemed like just “going through the motions” of the historical person episode. Even The Doctor just knows from the first second that there will be some weird alien stuff going on for him to fix. Couldn't the twist be that there wasn't this time? I always thought the great thing about Doctor Who was that anything could in theory happen. We can have weird episode that everyone hates like Love & Monsters, but also weird episodes that everyone loves like Blink. Or even weird (but great) episodes that nobody talks about like Midnight (the one where an unknown alien possesses an old lady and starts copying everything everyone says).

But now Doctor Who is as formulaic as CSI or House. There is a villain. The Doctor shows up in the Tardis and stops the villain by the end of the episode. They used to mess around with the pacing, the villains and the audience expectations. Sometimes even having some fascinating sci-fi in the vein of Star Trek like The Rebel Flesh episode. But now it happens less and less. And more and more focus on some boring overarching plot. Did Moffat forget what made Who interesting while marketing Who to America?

Any thoughts? 

«13

Comments

  • I've not yet taken the time to watch the Capaldi episodes sitting on my TiVo yet (Work's been busy, then there's some personal/family stuff going one), so I'm sure I'll be back in this thread later with yet another long rant. In the meantime, I will toss out a few observations about Grand Moff Steven's general take on Who through the Matt Smith years.
    Series 5-7 were, overall, quite weak for me. While I enjoyed Matt Smith's take on the Doctor I feel his run was hampered by Moffat's tendency towards clever and smug rather than rounded characters. Davis started season-long plot arcs, and clever-clever Moffat had to up the ante with three-year plot arcs--a bit more complex than that required by the classic position of the show as some Saturday evening light adventure.
    One could argue that Who has always been formula--for the most part every episode is "Doctor Wins, all is well." Sometimes there's a lasting consequence (R.I.P. Adric), but, for the most part, the end of a story returns to status quo. In my humble opinion this is where the serial format of the classic series has an advantage over the current paradigm of single-episode stories. Sure, an old 6-parter might have it's fair share of padding, but the longer format allowed for greater character development, and the good-ol cliffhanger ratchets up the tension. A villain has to occasionally "win" to be a credible threat, and a classic story that would (for example) let the Daleks negative skeleton a whole horde of extras before meeting their defeat kept the Daleks a credible threat.
    I use the Daleks as an example because Moffat gave us several Dalek-based stories where the homicidal little mutants utterly failed in being any kind of threat at all--I think in Victory of the Daleks, the pepperpots offed a single human--and the New Paradigm Daleks proved their intellectual inferiority by awakening and killing the Daleks that restored them. Those "bronze" Daleks were pretty creepy--imagine the patience a Dalek has to show to stand there and let the DOCTOR beat it with a bat! Too bad the "New Paradigm" forgot that Daleks are perfectly fine with slave races (Ogrons, anyone?)... "Asylum of the Daleks" was a big steaming pile of WTF? Ok, wait: The Daleks have an Asylum where they put the insane Daleks that the Daleks do not wish to destroy because of the beauty of their hate. Therefore, they ask the Doctor to deactivate the shields so the Daleks can destroy the Asylum that the didn't want to destroy? I... DAMMIT MOFFAT!
    The Moffat era in general lacked threat. One Silence exploded one little old lady in a restroom, then they spent two seasons standing around being useless--it's like in X-men 3 when someone would deliver a portentous statement about how Phoenix could destroy the Universe with an idle sneeze, and then the camera would cut to jean doing nothing and continuing to do nothing in a nothing way. I already mentioned the Daleks, and "Angels take Manhattan?" Well, after dying a combined total of 11 times (oh, you clever-clever Moffat) Amy and Rory's final "tragic" fate is to--live happily ever after. *Yawns*. (Statue of Liberty Angel---cuz, yeah, that makes sense. No, wait, it doesn't.)
    I actually really enjoyed "Day of the Doctor," but, wow, that story might have had a bit more impact if the resolution to damn near half of the stories of that era hasn't been "Temporal Reset Button--never happened!" And, after a wonderful resolution to the plotline of the Doctor's name ("My real name doesn't matter, it's the name I CHOSE!" and "You said the name you chose was a promise: What was the promise?") we had "Time of the Doctor," bringing back that tired ol "DOCTOR WHHHHHOOOOOOOOO!" stuff. Sigh. Fortunately for Smith, "Time and the Rani," exists, thus keeping "Time ot the Doctor" from being the weakest regeneration story.
    I think another reason I've been putting off the Capaldi stories is I have had a general malaise growing towards Who under the stewardship of Moffat. The Davies era had it's fair share of clunker stories ("Fear Her," and let's not forget any episodes with a Slitheen being an extended fart joke), but as Staff Only brought up there was still a wider range of stories in the Davis era. Anything could happen! Even a little girl with crayons! Risks were taken! Sometimes the Doctor went off the deep end, decided to start changing the timeline only to have the woman who he tried to save take his arrogance down a peg with a little timeline-saving suicide (Man, "Waters of Mars" was a bleak one).
    So, I'll be interested to see what other's responses to the current series are: I will say this--if "Into the Dalek" doesn't have any negative skeletons in it, I'm going to push for the UK for my honeymoon next year just to go slap Moffat. ;-)
  • I like Capaldi as the Dr. I don't mind having an older guy back in the role.
    But... the 'science', I use term very loosely, is beyond stupid. It doesn't make any sense at all.
    The end of the Robin Hood episode just had me completely lost. Is that REALLY the best solution they could come up with? Someone was paid to write than and nobody said "You know what, this ending is completely stupid. Even young childrens shows have better thought out endings"
    And why did the archery target explode from the sonic screwdriver? Explode? why? What was it made of?
    I've liked Dr Who since I was a kid. It used to come on directly after The Goodies here in Australia and that was a great hour for me! But even The Goodies solutions to problems make more sense than some of these Dr Who episodes...
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator
    edited September 2014
    Capaldi is good and getting better with every episode.
    Unfortunately, the episodes themselves have been awful. The Robin Hood episode was a big step up, in that it was actually witty, fast-paced and mostly well produced (finale was atrocious, however). The first two eps, though, especially the first one, were some of the limpest television I've ever watched. There's really no excuse for the BBC's flagship children's drama/scifi show to be so lacking in technical and artistic ability. Terrible cinematography. Terrible VFX. Terrible editing. Terrible script.
  • edited September 2014
    Actually I liked the first episode of this series. The dinosaur was odd, but the kind-of continuation of series 2 ep. 4 was brilliant. It also set up Missy, hopefully a series wide villain with, hopefully, real potential.
    Capaldi is also good, more cynical and less flamboyant...
    P.S.  I distinctly remember there being a rule about not talking about 'Love and Monsters'...
  • Only had a chance to watch "Deep Breath" so far, but:
    Well, Capaldi's fantastic! As should be expected of a master actor who is a lifelong fan of the character, he hit the ground running. Tom Baker once stated that "no actor has ever failed as the Doctor," and Capaldi continues the trend--no matter the varying quality of story and script over the years, the actor playing the Doctor has always been excellent.
    This particular script? Well, it's a little disjointed, innit? On the good side, we have actual strong characterization for a change, but some of the episode felt like the producer pleading with the audience to stay with the show--long scenes with Vastra and Clara, the phone call from Matt Smith stand out. I'm one of those who question Clara--a woman who's seen and met every incarnation of the Doctor to date--being so thrown by the regeneration. With any other companion this would have worked better.
    Moffat recently has had a tendency to aim for an exciting cold-open that doesn't always work with the end of the previous episode: to jump back a year, at the end of "The Name of the Doctor," the Doctor jumps into his own timestream to save Clara--an action we are told by Madame Vastra could destroy the Doctor and the Universe. We are left on a cliffhanger of the Doctor and Clara inside the timestream staring at John Hurt (and his caption of "as the Doctor" once we had a dialog scene about John Hurt NOT being "the Doctor."). Cut to "Day of the Doctor" which opens with Clara leaving her day job at Coal Hill School... There's a good half-episode of material missing there, covering escaping the timestream, leaving Trenzalore, returning to Earth, the Doctor talking to Ian to get Clara a job... This brings us to "Deep Breath." There's certainly some time between Smith's regeneration and Capaldi getting swallowed by a dinosaur, but, screw it... Dino in London is EXCITING! Now, for the average story, gaps in between episodes work great--and they leave room for all those Big Finnish audio plays and books. ;-), but sometimes there's a "wait, what about...." left over.
    Anyhoo--overall, I did enjoy Deep Breath. Flawed, but still better than most of the Smith stories. Although, that "Missy" character managed to get old in a single scene--dammit, I'm going to have to put up with her at least every other episode, aren't I? Grumble.
    I'll watch "Into the Dalek" tonight. Really really hoping for negative skeletons.
  • Having watched "Into the Dalek," I am a bit surprised Simon pegged that one as a weak script. A couple of the composite shots were a bit weak, but, overall it was a good looking episode. Script wise, well, a bit of time wasted with Danny Pink, and Missy-in-heaven got old with "Deep Breath," but the sections dealing with the Doctor and Rusty were quite strong indeed.
    Chop out Coal Hill and "Heaven" and the rest of the episode is the best Dalek story since "Dalek" in 2005! And Grand Moff Steven FINALLY let a writer and director turn the Daleks loose again! These are Daleks that know their military superiority--and relish their own sadism. That Dalek mothership with it's thousands of fighting Daleks could have cheerfully vaporized the rebel ship from thousands of miles off. Contemptuously sending in a single squad for some close-in extermination says a lot about how much the Daleks truly relish nurturing their homicidal tendencies.
    Rusty himself is now a very interesting character--and if he shares his new knowledge with other Daleks (rather than single-mindedly blasting away until he finds himself overwhelmed by numbers, there could be a a third Dalek faction between Emperor loyalists and Davros loyalists. The Daleks are interesting and scary again! (Since we haven't seen any of the ugly, stupid and ineffectual "New Paradigm" Daleks, one can hope Grand Moff Steven saw that experiment in Dalek storyline for the failure it was.)
    Capaldi remains fantastic. His Doctor's current ethical self-doubt is a logical outgrowth of the Doctor's recent actions--and Capaldi's Doctor can be quite cold. This is a Time Lord who is more concerned with the Big Picture than the small details. (Yup, that guy's gonna die--may as well try and gain useful information from it. Cold.) Capaldi's more restrained delivery is a welcome change from Tennant and Smith running around like ten-year-olds binging on sugar and caffeine. Even better, the last few episodes have gone a long way towards giving Clara an actual personality now that her "Impossible Girl" plotline is resolved (and, with Jenna Coleman leaving at Christmas, Grand Moff Steven will have to resolve that currently dormant plot thread about the TARDIS disliking her, rather than that becoming something that gets dragged out for another two years).
  • The good news is that episode 4 is a cracker. Fascinating, deliberately vague script, really nice cinematography, simple and effective premise, properly creepy, with some interesting lore bits. And Capaldi is stunning in this ep.
    Going back to the cinematography: why is the look of this show so uneven? Do they use multiple DPs? To go from the horrid, low budget, cheap look of episode 1 to the textured, dramatically effective look of episode 4 really, really doesn't make sense.
  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator
    edited September 2014
    IMDB data for "CInematography" for Doctor Who (2005):
    Series Cinematography by  Ernest Vincze ... (38 episodes, 2005-2009)
    Rory Taylor ... (24 episodes, 2006-2014)
    Stephan Pehrsson ... (11 episodes, 2010-2013)
    Mark Waters ... (5 episodes, 2010-2014)
    Owen McPolin ... (5 episodes, 2010-2011)
    Neville Kidd ... (5 episodes, 2012-2013)
    Tim Palmer ... (3 episodes, 2011-2013)
    Balazs Bolygo ... (3 episodes, 2011)
    Suzie Lavelle ... (3 episodes, 2013-2014)
    Damian Bromley ... (2 episodes, 2010)
    Graham Frake ... (2 episodes, 2010)
    Tony Slater-Ling ... (2 episodes, 2010)
    Dale McCready ... (2 episodes, 2011-2013)
    Ashley Rowe ... (2 episodes, 2014)
    Magni Ágústsson ... (2 episodes, 2014)
    Simon Archer ... (1 episode, 2010)
    Erik Wilson ... (1 episode, 2010)
    Gavin Struthers ... (1 episode, 2012)
    Simon Dennis ... (1 episode, 2013)
    Jake Polonsky ... (1 episode, 2013)
    Mike Southon ... (1 episode, 2013)
    Mark Garrett ... (1 episode, 2014)
    Nic Morris ... (1 episode, 2014)
    Note: Overlapping names/years. So... if you choose to accept the mission, you can watch the individual episode credits and figure out which of these DP's are the good 'uns.
    23 DP's in 105 episodes... Hmmmm...
    34 Editors.
    49 Directors...
    There's your variance in tone and quality!
    I'm not counting all the writers ("34") as I'm pretty sure Terry Nation, Robert Homes or Malcolm Hulke actually set words on a page in this particular production run....
    Not watched ep 4 yet, but ep3 was fun..
  • The good news is that episode 4 is a cracker. Fascinating, deliberately vague script, really nice cinematography, simple and effective premise, properly creepy, with some interesting lore bits. And Capaldi is stunning in this ep.
    Going back to the cinematography: why is the look of this show so uneven? Do they use multiple DPs? To go from the horrid, low budget, cheap look of episode 1 to the textured, dramatically effective look of episode 4 really, really doesn't make sense.

    Yeah i have also found that the earlier doctor whos of the series have been very week in the editing VFX and cinematography. It almost looks like a 13 year old filmed it. Also some of the effects i reckon you could do way better in Hitfilm. Don't get me wrong i love doctor who but whats happening?  I mean seriously? Have they got a new low budget or something? 

  • Triem - very interesting! That explains that, then. Different editors, directors etc is normal on a show, but I'm more used to the DP staying the same. Or at the very least their being a lead DP who sets the look and standard.
    More to the point, though - surely Doctor Who has the clout and presence to hire pretty much any good DP they want? 
  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator
    edited September 2014
    Also, 34 editors? A lack of consistency both on set and in the edit suite makes a consistent look difficult, to say the least.
    To compare, Babylon 5, 110 episodes, 25 directors, 2 DPs (John Flynn did 102), 4 editors (2 of whom each did about 45 episodes).
  • I'm a huge fan of Capaldi, and I loved Listen. It's definitely good to have a different type of Doctor in those shoes.
  • Thoughts on the latest ep? I thought it was a bit of an odd one, and kind of opposite to how I normally find Who, namely: it had lots of really strong components, but didn't add up to anything much. Whereas ordinarily I find Who to be a mess, but which sometimes adds up to more than the sum of its parts.

    Liked the supporting characters, several of the ideas surrounding the cyborg were really intriguing, and the creature suit was superb. Central plot was a bit wobbly, though, and the mutant stuff was ripped straight out of an X-Men comic.

    Capaldi continuing to be ace, though, regardless of anything else.

  • Simon - Thoughts on the latest ep? 
     
    Honestly, it was crap. I'm constantly suprised how bad the stories are. 
    Someone is actually paid to write this stuff. Is it THAT hard to write something that makes sense? Doesn't have to be realistic, just make sense...
     
    I REALLY like Dr Who. I like Capaldi a lot. But these stories are just terrible. I know you can find plot holes in most stories, but I find myself watching these episodes with a look of disbelief on my face.
     
    I'm  sure I remember some episodes in earlier seasons working better than this. The first Weeping Angels. I really liked the two parter with the the planet close to the black hole, with something imprisoned there. 
     
    Maybe this is me as well, but we seem to be going out of our way to understand the baddies as well... I don't mind baddies being baddies!
     
    I've never been a big fan of Star Trek for this reason. To many episodes just felt like "I know lots of our crew have been killed. but it was all a miss understanding". Where I enjoyed Babalyon 5 where it was more "Something unknown is on the ship! Kill it with fire!"
  • " Where I enjoyed Babalyon 5 where it was more "Something unknown is on the ship! Kill it with fire!""

    @fredclips--Don't you mean "KILL IT WITH PLASMA!" ;-)

     

  • :)

    Yes, I believe KILL IT WITH PLASMA is correct.

    BTW: I also feel this is a better example of human behaviour then what Star Trek gives us. (Or Dr Who lately)

  • edited September 2014

    Hate to say this- I'm going to have to drop any cable or satallite tv due to expences and judging from the first 5 episodes this season, I can honestly say I will not be missing Dr. Who.

    Capaldi is okay as the Doctor and I've made no qualms about stating I thought the Tennant seasons were THE BEST EVER, IMHO (keep in mind I haven't seen several doctors from Baker to Eccleston so I do not have a total picture). However, the scripts and stories are weaker this season and there are jumps in the story which kind of support what I initially stated about the prospects of Capaldi as the Doctor. Several times now they have had a scene where they need to run. Someone yells, RUN!, the camera pans quickly left/right and the next scene starts- skipping any running altogether.  I'm not chalking that up to the writers thinking Capaldi is too old or anything- I'm chalking it up to bean counters and insurance reasons. Probably the same reason we haven't seen this Doctor engaging in a lot of physical effort. First show of the season the most he did was push an alien against an open door and threaten to throw him out. The sword fight against Robin Hood with a spoon was amusing but I can't help thinking if Smith were still in the role they would have done something a little more grand at the end of the fight than just tripping Robin off a log.

    Also- I really do NOT like what they've done with the theme this time.

    Whatever the case, my love for Dr. Who is waning, unfortunately.

    Probably doesn't help that my job has a limited number of days left leaving me just a little lot bumbed out. Another reason I have to drop 'paid for' tv. Back to the free airwaves......and possibly Netflix if I can afford it.

  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator
    edited October 2014

    @Stormy--Every single take on the theme that Murray Gold has done has been terrible. His season 5/6 theme was bearable... Murray's current version makes the Keff McCullogh version (Doctor 7--1987-89) sound good, and that version of the theme sounds like a Dalek excreting undigested food waste.....

    So--a bit off topic, but it occured to me that I've never, ever actually watched "An Unearthly Child," and, since (USA) Hulu Plus has most-but-not-all extant episodes of Classic Who online I figured it was time to delve into the very very first Doctor Who story....

    There's an editor at Hulu who has to decide where to place commercial breaks, and that editor is the single worst editor in the history of editing--I mean the edit I'm about to describe was som unimaginably bad I had to pause, and go bother my fiancee in her shower to complain about it! (Also, bear in mind that I was so annoyed by said edit that I completely ignored naked, soapy woman....)

    How bad an edit, you may be asking?

    Ok, it's the very, very first episode of Doctor Who---think for a moment about where the absolute worst possible place to put a break in the action. it doesn't matter if you've seen the episode--my fiancee hadn't and she figured it out....

    If you decided the worst place to put an edit would be AS BARBARA WALKS INTO THE TARDIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, congratulations---you can work for Hulu. Seriously, man, WTF?! Barbara walkes through the external door and it goes to commercial, coming back onthe reversal as she stops dead in the control room....

    Possibly the single worst edit I have ever seen in the history of editing--it's worse than the bit in X-Men 3: The Last Stand when Magneto moves the Golden Gate Bridge in full daylight, then, suddenly, it's full night as the Brotherhood begin to cross*.

    *I like to think there's a director's cut where Magneto moves the bridge in full daylight, then says "Well, that took more out of me than I thought--let's get some sushi before we attack Alcatraz."

  • edited October 2014

    LOL- T23- you crack me up.

    One really has to have a sense of things in order to make good and proper edits. It's akin to live performance i.e. when I run sound for a sketch show the timing has to be right on. If the lights go out and the music is late taking the audience out of one sketch and into another it not only breaks the overall cadence of the show but also leaves the actors remaining still until the music starts so you can't hear them exiting the stage. The biggest difference is, I have to have all those cues perfect for 16 shows- the idiot at Hulu would never be able to handle it.

    I NEVER would have made an edit while someone is entering the TARDIS for the first time. In 'Who' history, that's got to be the mother of all faux pas.

    I caught that Magneto mishap. When I first saw that sequence I thought there was something wrong but my brain didn't process it right away. You actually just verified that for me as I only saw it once.

  • Thanks Hitfilm 3 Express I Did Now For Download

  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator

    Catching up on Capaldi after too many months. 

    IMHO, he's by far the best NuWho Doctor and I am actually enjoying the stories (mostly) and even Clara has an actual personality! 

    Let's just say that series 8 isn't inspiring the same ranting complaints about Grand Moff Steven that series 5-7 did. Ok, three more episodes tobgo, but then I will be eagerly awaiting September. 

  • So what was the whole "Your Scottish"/"I'm Scottish" rant about? He can't be Scottish if he's from Gallifrey, can he? Or did some Scotts migrate there at some point in the past and intermingled with Time Lord DNA? ;^)

    Do you find this Doctor more of a curmudgeon than past Doctors? Or have there been more like him before?

  • I will just drop this here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csVdLbDMO4

    @00:21 looks like we might be seeing some of the old city of the Daleks and @00:30 looks to be the old design with the round screens control panels. 

    Cannot confirm that though I haven't really been keeping up to date recently. 

  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator
    edited August 2015

    @StormyKnight I think the Scots thing was a joke. There's always a certain amount of "hmmmmm" in Doctor Who. ;-) That said, during the 1996 TV Movie, Paul McGann's Doctor explicitly states he is half-human. This was a polarizing revealation--some fans hated it, and both NuWho showrunners (Davies and Moffat) have stated they're not using that as part of their background for the show. Personally, I like the idea: it would explain why, with all of time and space to play in the Doctor is so fascinated by humans (other than the show is aimed at humanity. ;-) ), and it would explain why the Doctor's regenerations are so problematic. Other Time Lords that have been shown didn't seem to have nearly as much trouble with regeneration shock, and, in the case of Romana in the Tom Baker story "City of Death," she's shown controlling her body, choosing her own form. Personally, I figured the half-human would be a great way to get around the 12-regeneration limit. Being half-human, subjected to a process designed for a full-blood Gallifreyan could have meant the Doctor got some odd hybrid vigor, and maybe he just got 24 regeneration because of this... That's probably a better plot than "Time of the Doctor," which was just terrible. (Poor, poor Matt Smith, so, so wasted in three seasons of really awful wrting.)

    Capaldi as curmudgeon? That's actually part of his charm for me. The Doctor is ALIEN, and both Tennant and Smith's Doctors had this thing for wanting everyone to like them. 12 doesn't care that much. But there's a lot of precedent for a grumpy Doctor. One (Hartnell) flat-out kidnapped his original companions in a fit of pique, and, in the first Dalek story lied about the TARDIS being damaged and pulled a vital circut because he wanted to explore the alien planet, and just couldn't be bother to take his kidnap victims home at that point. Three (Pertwee) was often arrogant and condescending. Four (Tom Baker) has the reputation for being a "wacky" Doctor with the scarf and the googly eyes and the jelly babies, but Four was also quite moody and could lash out in anger at a moment's notice. Six (Colin Baker) was also a mercurial, arrogant Doctor, brash, angry, and not above, say, pushing a foe into a huge tank of acid and quipping a one-liner. (Six was supposed to mellow as time went on, but his arc got cut short when the BBC canned him during a hiatus. Plus, poor Six had the worst costume in the history of bad costumes. Seven started out as a clown, but was later revealed to be darkly manipulative--a foe gloated to the Doctor that he had planted Seven's current companion, Ace, in the TARDIS. Now, for reasons I won't go too much into, "faith" acted as a psychic shield against the secondary villain of this story ("The Curse of Fenric." Probably the best 7th Doctor story, and one of my all-time favorites.) and, at this particular moment, Ace's faith that the Doctor could save the day was a factor. Anyway, after the revelation that Ace was an (unwitting) plant, the Doctor basically responds with "Yeah, I figured that out a long time ago," and then, because the psychic shield of Ace's faith was actually an impediment to the Doctor's plan to save the universe, Seven then rips poor Ace to shreds.... brutally... "Of COURSE I knew! Why do you think I saddled myself with an emotional cripple!" Sadly, Doctor Who was cancelled shortly after this episode, because the Doctor and Ace were left still rebuilding their friendship.

    But, with all that said, Capaldi's grumpy, curmudgeonly, detached take on the Doctor is very in keeping with several of his past portrayals. Among my personal circles of geek friends, those who picked up on Doctor Who with the reboot are the ones who are likely to think Capaldi isn't very "Doctory," while those of use who are familiar with the original run are more likely to regard him as the most "Doctory" of the current show.

    @NxVisualStudio Looking forward to September.

    In general--I'm still in season 8, having "In the Forest of the Night" and the two-part finale to go. Overall, I'm enjoying this season on Who more than any season of the current run. A couple of the stories haven't been the best ("Deep Breath" and "Robots of Sherwood," but I'm not complaining to my wife at the end of each episode about reset buttons and River Song! Now, with this "Missy in Heaven" arc, Moffatt can screw me in the season finale and bring back every casuality of the season and have the Doctor somehow manage to save everyone after all, butI don't think Moffatt did that. It would be too Eleven of a resolution.

  • As I recall, 'Robots of Sherwood' was the episode that stopped me watching Who. So, so awful in so many ways. Which was a shame, because Capaldi is superb.

    Might give the new season a go. The trailer is pretty good, though the dragon VFX were exceedingly wobbly. A fantastic lead actor seems to be the only consistent thing about New Who - everything else can yo-yo wildly between superb and terrible. They really need to go some QA consistency!

  • edited August 2015

    SimonKJones Triem23

    some episodes have been cringe worthy, I'm almost not looking forward to the over sized bins that look like hybrid / old bronze diving helmet,

    And yes the dragon ........... from my point of view it does look cartoon like/ pastel almost, 

  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator

    @SimonKJones Deep Breath, Robots of Sherwood and In the Forest of the Night were weak. Forest was Smith-era bad (go on, guess which Doctor Who era is at the dead bottom of my list. G'wan! Whose seasons were worse than Colin Baker's?). Rest of the season quite strong. And Moffat didn't hit a reset button in the season finale as I feared, 

    That said, as noted above, Doctor Who has too many different directors, DP's and editors for consistency. This has to be laid at the doors of the BBC. Unfortunately, from what I gather from available behind the  scenes information on Doctor Who and other shows, the BBC pools staff into departments and farms them out at the back office level  rather than letting show runners build teams. 

    @NxVisualStudio maybe it's because I am old, but I think Doctor Who needs the occasional naff CGI. Can't look TOO good when you're a low-budget show! ;-) 

  • That 'too many cooks' aspect really does spoil the show and stop it from having a cohesive style and quality. Much as I love a lot about it, it's always blindingly apparent just how much better it could be if they produced it slightly differently.

  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator

    Preaching to the choir. 

  • Triem23 - I never thought Tom Baker was all that wacky- more whimsy was my impression and I rather liked him. So much, I begged my mom to knit me a scarf that was long like his. 2 minutes on the school playground corrected that mistake quickly.....kids. But I grew up watching Baker and then the local PBS (Public Broadcasting Stations) affiliate stopped running them for a number of years due to funding. I think they were a few years behind from original broadcast in the U.K. at the time to begin with, so Baker was the last Dr. I saw before Eccleston. When I saw it was on Sci-Fi channel I was ecstatic and now I catch them on BBC America. If I had the time and means I would look for other Dr. series before and after Baker to catch up on what I missed but there's so much! So I appreciate your taking the time to keep the record straight as I have fallen into the scenario of reboot point #1 as you say: "those who picked up on Doctor Who with the reboot are the ones who are likely to think Capaldi isn't very "Doctory," while those of us who are familiar with the original run are more likely to regard him as the most "Doctory" of the current show."

    Along with yours and SimonKJones' point about too many directors, I'd throw in too many writers or even radically different writers from season to season can ruin a good thing also. I site NBC's Heroes from a few years back. Season 1 awesome, season 2 bleh, season 3 I watched hoping the show would die already. That's so sad.  :^(         

Sign in to comment

Leave a Comment