|
Member
(03-21-2012, 03:54 AM)
|
#9352
I mean, you can debate about why he would even know that, but from a narrative perspective it's just a huge middle finger to the viewer. You have characters question if it might be a duplicate, have another character show up to say "it's not a duplicate" with authority, in their only real role in that scene, and then twelve episodes later go "lol, it was a duplicate after all, guys". |
|
iddqd
(03-21-2012, 04:02 AM)
|
#9353
Seriously. The only thing I can figure is that the explanation is so goddamn simple people refuse to believe it after years of convoluted and complicated twist endings. And the whole season was about duplicates, basically. So it was entirely thematically consistent. |
|
Member
(03-21-2012, 04:09 AM)
|
#9354
I thought it made perfect sense.
What made me laugh is all the people complaining about it simulating regeneration. It can turn its legs into a motorcycle, I don't understand how regeneration is "too out there". I guess you're right, people were expecting something overly-convoluted but we got something simple. There's nothing wrong with a simple solution, not everything needs to be paradox-inducing "timey-wimey" insanity. |
|
Member
(03-21-2012, 04:19 AM)
|
#9355
I think the larger issue is that the whole "omg, the Doctor is really dead" plotline could never be resolved in any satisfying way that wasn't some sort of cheat. It would have to either be "The Doctor is magically revived", "Time can be rewritten", or "Oh, that wasn't actually him", and none of those are really satisfying conclusions to a 13 episode story arc. |
|
Member
(03-21-2012, 07:02 AM)
|
#9362
"What's an...Eye Phone?" "It's a phone with, you know, an eye in it, or something. I dealt with eye things before!" |
|
iddqd
(03-21-2012, 07:41 AM)
|
#9363
Quote:
|
|
Member
(03-21-2012, 08:16 PM)
|
#9366
Telling the viewers in the first episode "that's really the Doctor, not a duplicate" and then going in episode thirteen "oh, that was just a duplicate" isn't an example of a cleverly written arc. It's just cheap writing in an attempt to trick people for no reason.
Quote:
|
|
(03-21-2012, 08:18 PM)
|
#9368
So now I'm supposed to be happy about only getting 5 episodes this year? Screw this schedule. Moffat isn't even filming Sherlock again til 2013! DAMNIT!
|
|
BOSS
(03-21-2012, 08:35 PM)
|
#9372
Yeah, the change in the schedule sucks balls. So little Doctor Who these days. :( New companion has a serious case of Selena Gomez face. |
|
iddqd
(03-21-2012, 08:42 PM)
|
#9374
OMG THE DOCTOR DIDN'T DIE THIS EPISODE, WHAT A COPOUT! |
|
Member
(03-21-2012, 08:52 PM)
|
#9377
To be honest, I would prefer Doctor Who not do story arcs, at any rate. I'm not opposed to having one every now and then, but I think the show was better when it was just focused on telling strong stories. The occasional arc (like the Key to Time or Black Guardian Trilogy) can be cool, but story arcs in Doctor Who shouldn't ever become a central focus. RTD's story arcs were better in my mind largely because they stayed in the background. You had a number of standalone stories, but there were some events in them that became relevant in the finale. None of his arcs were really great, but they also managed to avoid getting in the way of the first eleven episodes telling their own stories. |
|
Member
(03-21-2012, 09:19 PM)
|
#9386
|
|
Member
(03-21-2012, 09:50 PM)
|
#9390
Short for Russell T. Davies, the former showrunner and one of the men responsible for bringing Doctor Who back on air.
While fans praise him for bringing the show back, he's often criticized for his poor writing, over-use of references, unsubtle handling of sexuality (I'M JACK HARKNESS AND I FUCK EVERYTHING), and the Season 3 finale that made Care Bears look realistic (to me that's the worst finale) There was also his pet treatment of Rose Tyler. While River Song is criticized for being Moffat's pet character, she's NOWHERE near as bad as Rose. At least River dies, and she's likeable. Rose is a massive bitch and got a horribly contrived happy ending where the much better Donna Noble got mind-wiped. Actually, I'm still debating if Season 4 was a worse finale than 3... |
|
Member
(03-21-2012, 09:54 PM)
|
#9392
RTD mentioned in the outline for Jack that he would be willing to sleep with anyone, but that it probably wouldn't come up in the show. Moffat said that he took that as a challenge and was determined to make Jack's sexuality front and center. |
|
sputum-flecked apoplexy
(03-21-2012, 09:56 PM)
|
#9393
|
|
Member
(03-21-2012, 09:58 PM)
|
#9394
Moffat was responsible for setting that up. Jack was simply being written as consistent with that original introduction. Not to mention that RTD wasn't heavily involved with most of Torchwood.
|
|
sputum-flecked apoplexy
(03-21-2012, 10:02 PM)
|
#9396
When I think of that opening episode, I mostly think of a charming shyster. What he turned into was a lecherous faux-mysterious dick. I don't think I blame that on consistency with the way he was written in the first episode.
|
|
iddqd
(03-21-2012, 10:06 PM)
|
#9397
Yeah he came off as flirty and sexual in his introduction episode, but not exactly quite the lech he became later (mostly in Torchwood imo). I don't think that's necessarily either RTD or Moffat's fault, though.
|
|
Member
(03-21-2012, 10:07 PM)
|
#9398
|
|
Member
(03-21-2012, 10:08 PM)
|
#9399
Basically this. He started out as just a con artist with interest in both men and women. But further characterization turned him into an even worse Glenn Quagmire. That's how bad it is... I had to reference Family Guy.
|