Best wishes for a quick recovery, Mike.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Jp12x
Best wishes for a quick recovery, Mike.
That's interesting, Tom. I had the opposite with Smith: I understood and enjoyed him about halfway through his first episode. But, I lost interest as the season progressed. I don't recall what, but there was something I really didn't enjoy about the Pandorica. Then, the impossible astronaut had a terrible resolution and I disliked River Song more over time (she reminds me of Miss Piggy now). I've enjoyed all of Tennant's run since "Smith and Jones" (my first 2005 episode). But, his earlier episodes are ruined for me by Rose.
I think I'm just hyper-critical of story shortcomings. If the basic story doesn't make sense to me (plot holes and contrivances), then I can't engage with the emotional story (if I'm thinking "that is BS" I can't also be thinking "aww, this is so precious"). I know Davies and Moffat let logic fall by the waysidein favor of an emotional story or a 'stylish' or 'cool' moment; But, I loved 'Silence in the Library'; So, I guess some stories are better than others.
PS: My wife is loving the Lego Movie Extended episode.
Agreed.
The Whinecast guys talk about the feeling that The Doctor is being written in a very wide way, maybe so he is easier to write for. I think to the first Smith episode and I knew exactly what Smith's Doctor would be. My first Tennant episode was the introduction of Martha, and that, too, gave a very clear idea of what the Doctor would be like. But, the writing for Capaldi has been meandering: He's gray and grumpy, except when he's not.
I don't get the comment, Faldor. But, I'm tired from yard work. Feel free to explain it.
I think the episode is baseline Dr who. The plot is simple; The scenes are in a linear arrangement; The cast is great and i laughed a few times. I don't feel I can complain about Who nonscience, unless they make an attempt to explain it. So, they told the story they meant to tell and I got it. There were a few groans and I still don't understand the Doctor's 'soldier' issue (I'm assuming it has a War Doctor angle and some self-loathing). And, saying the black guy must be a PE teacher seemed more racist than anti-soldier to me (I knew some brilliant people when I served). But with my general dislike for the previous episodes of this season, it's hard to complain. I am glad to see a simple, straight-forward episode of Dr Who.
The Caretaker
The episode isn't broken. I hope we get more like this (maybe cut back on the soap opera).
I kind of liked Mars Needs Moms. They make some interesting choices if I recall correctly.
Wiki says "The film was a commercial and critical flop, and is the second biggest box office bomb in history, grossing less than $39 million on a budget of $150 million." That alone ought to make you curious.
Eh, this feels a lot like nitpicking.
It mostly is. That's why I prefaced it saying none of it kills the episode.
The main problem is, there is no payoff. We have mysteries but we can guess what's going on. We just don't know the goal of the titular 'Heist'. Not knowing the goal, it's hard to care about it and we certainly don't spend time explaining it's importance or savoring the win. It's a bit of a slog for little reward.
This is discussed on a podcast I listen to: http://thedoctorwhorewatchpodcast.blogs … -time.html I love that you can read this as "the doctor whore watch podcast".
I also enjoyed the fact that the Doctor wasn't able to utilize the TARDIS.
As for the killing, I was referring to the detour to the security office. In the endless, reused Westworld hallway set, the monster is hunting all 4 of them but we cut to the Doctor and Clara in custody. This is moronic as they are not being interrogated and their deaths are ordered anyway.
The self-loathing disturbs me. I'm wondering if it plays into the 'find Gallifrey', 'why this face' and 'good man' stuff.
I found the time loop unnecessary. As far as I can tell, it is only there to make use of the phone and try to artificially make the story 'epic'. I really don't like someone trying to spice up a story by adding 'special' elements to it. A perfect example is the Red Hulk: http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/20 … rs-hammer/ Jeph Loeb had Tom Brevoort in an elevator once and asked how a bad guy could use Thor's hammer. A few years later, Jeph wants to make Red Hulk look cool so he uses both possibilities in a single fight, thinking: Red Hulk is badass, bro, he can take Thor's hammer! The same thing is happening here with the phone being called and the Doctor explicitly states how special it all is. I call it lazy not because it is being used as a crutch to a plot hole but because it is being used to create anticipation and excitement which will not pay off (ex: if it was the Doctor's dad calling for help, that would be completely justified).
I thought the level of technology for the "richest bank in the universe" should predict massive solar storms. We can do that now with days of warning. If you check the news you will hear warnings about solar flares every few years and those won't burn the surface of our planet. It seems silly the bank didn't see it coming. So much so that I thought it was some sort of big solar flare that would not threaten the planet but just mess up the computers and lock a bit. I was very surprised to see an evacuation.
Can the monster put back what he takes? I didn't think so. Because 'soup'.
Overall, I think we agree. It is flawed. But, it's in the right direction.
Time Heist
Lighting and sets are pretty good.
Good casting in this episode. Everyone is a professional actor and gives a decent performance, etc.
The plot mostly makes sense. There seems to be the bones of a really fun story here. As I understand it, the Doctor wants to save a species so he makes a plan but finds the vault only opens during a solar event and the TARDIS can't operate in the event. So, he pops in a few times before the event to leave confusing directions and unlabelled supplies. I think Moffat took a decent script and Moffat-ed it up.
The Bad (a lot, but they don't kill the episode):
There was no need to rush the pacing. Everything between finding the vault door and being rescued by the presumed dead is meaningless. The devices don't kill and there was no reason to assume they would. The worst rush is that we never see their last-minute escape into the TARDIS. The timing for it was there. They escaped just as flames engulfed the planet. But, we don't get to see it and the getaway is a big part of both Doctor Who and heist stories.
There was no need to rearrange the order of the scenes. There are too many smash cuts and flashbacks. I expect it was to create 'mystery' but I mostly found it annoying, as I had to keep trying to figure out where we were in the story.
The terrible monster doesn't kill the Doctor and Clara and we are given no reason for why it doesn't when it seems happy to eat the brain of anyone it's pointed at. In fact, it seems denied two meals before it finds them and it should be hungry, yeah?
The generic industrial pipes lead to both the vault door hallways and to the isolated personal vault; going to a guard room is breaking the flow of the 'heist', as we basically leave 'step 4', go back to the start, then run back and start 'step 5' with no trouble.
In prior episodes, we had very good scenes placed into very bad stories: Clara and the robot, Clara and the Sheriff, the Doctor and Robin Hood, etc. This episode had no great scenes. Here's a great comment by Ebert: Howard Hawks, asked for his definition of a great movie, said: "Three great scenes, no bad scenes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hawks
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journa … casablanca
Is it me or did the Doctor say he hates himself?
This is a circular time-loop, right? I thought Doctor Who didn't do those. That's Back to the Future stuff: the Doctor broke into a bank to tell the owner to tell him to break into the bank to hell her to tell him to...
The cybernetic guy pulled a Max Headroom. That was dumb in the 80's. It's worse now.
The solar event allows the vault to open but it will also destroy the bank? Not a single person has the job of looking into that stuff for the richest bank/woman in the galaxy? Is the event really the day the bank was destroyed and only a suitcase of its contents were saved?
The monster eats memories AND the worms eat memories AND the cyborg deleted his own memories? That's too much memory loss for one episode. The cyborg, at least, could have been motivated by information that wasn't deleted memories. The monster could have sensed guilt and eaten brains but not memories (I know it would require a new way for the Doctor to get his memory back).
How did getting his memories eaten restore the Doctor's memories? It's pretty counter-intuitive.
How did the Doctor learn about the last two members of a species he didn't recognize who exist only in the most private bank in the galaxy and in the closet of that bank's most private quarters? This goes back to the time loop and is sloppy writing.
The story tries to make the Doctor look like he was forced into being a crook and the reveal that he is not a crook is really no surprise at all.
The Ugly
The episode is organized like a damn fever dream. We skip from present day to a meeting table to guards to the start of the job in just a few minutes. During the job, the cuts are too fast and awkward for my taste. The ending is especially abrupt.
Overall, I expected to want to vomit. This episode was a more enjoyable alternative. Objectively, I think it is actually kind of pedestrian/mediocre. The story would have been better if the Doctor simply said he has a special mission to save a whole species, came up with a plan and then followed it. Being pursued by a brain eater and guards and maybe accidentally touching a memory-eating worm would have been plenty of danger. The last episode, remember HAD NO MONSTER OR DANGER. (Sorry, I'm still annoyed by that one).
I felt like it was a step up from the mixed bag of "Robots of Sherwood" and "Listen"
Agreed.
BTW: I really enjoy that clapping GIF.
This episode was a great follow-up for WTF with Judy Greer. She talks a bit about her projects and pilots, etc.
Teague: I really enjoyed Almost Human. As for your work, I did not see even a single bad effect. It's no surprise that the series received an Emmy Award nomination for Outstanding Special and Visual Effects. So, of course...FOX cancelled it. I think it is well worth watching and has an obvious Asimov/"Caves of Steel" feel to it. Thank you for the good work.
There are a lot of things being said in very general ways here.
I have a serious problem with it when you then post that online (often-times on piratebay), and start promoting it and making it about yourself, and stupid discussions start up about what the "best" fan-edit is for a particular movie, and whatnot.
Your hostility suggests you are not a member of this subculture and you are making assumptions. The best way to distribute a fanedit is by file-sharing (as opposed to post or whatever). There is also not a single illegal thing happening when you share such a file with a small group, not for profit (in the USA, at least). By it's very nature, a re-cut is a transformative act and protected. Discussions about a 'best' edit are a bit tiring but usually it is someone looking to see what an edit could do for a movie they enjoy and they want a recommendation for where to start. People who have seen several edits of a movie do not generally, in my experience, waste pages of forums debating which is superior.
I think that's very disrespectful to the filmmakers and editors who busted their asses to make the movie they made.
It's different because you're explicitly fucking with someone's art and redistributing it with your name attached against their will.
Listen to Trey more often. There are reasons for why decisions are made. They are not all good, but there are reasons. The 'art' doesn't always turn out as desired. A "Director's Cut' exists for many movies because the studio wanted one thing and the Director wanted something else. By your logic, future George Lucas is insulting past George Lucas by editing the movies he busted his ass to make. Spielberg too. Young George Lucas was fervently against colorizing movies and suggested legal action to protect movies from their creators. When the filmmakers themselves edit a movie years after the fact, after they have protested changing movies, I think it is ridiculous to claim it's disrespectful.
As for reasons, take The Hobbit. Jackson originally suggested something very different than what has gone to theater. He reasonable wanted a lower budget and 2 movies. A small couple of movies following closely to the book. For 'reasons', it is now a big budget trilogy of epic scale that has very little of the spirit of the book. Why not edit the trilogy into a couple or single movie? Why not cut the storylines that don't happen in the book? I say cut the dwarf-elf love story that completely negates the significance of the unique dwarf-elf friendship from LotR. Make the escape from the goblins quick instead of showing the highly improbable deaths of 150 goblins; and so on.
Since I don't enjoy the Hobbit movies as they are, maybe I will enjoy a fanedit. And, if a talented person already made one, I want to see it. I would really love to enjoy a Hobbit movie. If it isn't good, that's ok. I don't enjoy the originals, either.
Not that I'm against fan edits, I'm already started on the Hobbit.
Good for you. I'm waiting for a good fanedit. As for me, I put the Star Wars prequels into about 2 hours. Not a polished, final cut but I like it anyway. Also, I think you mean "I've already". Careful you don't become the crap editor bullet3 expects.
Listen
I think I started to get my hopes up again, as I am once again disappointed.
That is sh!t. I won't mention details of the retcons, bad fear science, bad evolution science, the Doctor's implied long subjective travel time since last episode, the chalkboard word, or a few other things I am sure would occur to me if I took the time. Instead:
1. This is the big one that ruins the episode for me: there was something under the bedsheet. There was a visual effect in the scene. Maybe the Doctor is a bit crazy and his minor telepathic ability is working very well and affecting people around him? We saw the psychic paper in use to remind us he is a bit 'mental'. BS. Moffat showed us a monster and then told us, the viewers, it was all in our heads. Sh!t. The episode has no resolution.
2. Col Pink. Why did he need to be a Pink? There is no story tie here. Any other person could do the exact same things. The only use I can think of is it reinforces some idea that Clara and Pink are 'destined' to be together (but unless they are a set point in time, they aren't). And, Moffat keeps showing the weaponless soldier as a metaphor for the Doctor and Pink is an excuse to show it again. I get the idea. But, showing it to us repeatedly doesn't make it a theme or make it more profound. And, the same actor? To me, that's like putting a mustache on Clara to play her brother. It's done only for comedy in Back to the Future.
2b.Worst of all, once more Moffat writes himself into a f*cking corner and cuts to a new scene and expects it to be OK. Clara and Pink, holding a unique item, closeup of fingers touching, Pink has just said something about family stories, time travel, and his great grandparents... [Whoa?! Where is this going, I wonder?] -AND CUT SCENE- Really? They just walked away from each other wordlessly? The same thing when the Doctor asks Clara if he is a good man. I am sure there are other examples. That is more garbage. Like having a cliffhanger at the commercial and when you come back the story has moved onto something else.
3. Clara is becoming a real B!tch. She has twice made very cruel and cutting remarks to Pink implying he is a murderer because he was a soldier. This episode she claims it was a joke. That implies he is too emotional about his time in service; That if he is traumatized it is because he is weak and a stronger man would be able to see the 'joke'. She storms off from the date when it was she who insulted him. Moffat's name is credited so I blame him. I was US Army and the handling of the whole thing is paradoxically both patronizing and insulting. None of this is really incorrect or illogical. It just makes me like it all a bit less.
4. The Doctor grew up in a place with rattling pipes? On a farm? Slept in a barn? The Gallifrey of pre-2005 never suggested that as possible, to me. And, Moffat doesn't get to say 'wait a minute this is going to get really good'. He's got no credit. It felt like a weak excuse to retcon the War Doctor story. Do you remember those stark Gallifrey halls and high collars? I refuse to believe they also milked goats.
5. Maybe not for you, but for me, we have a huge misstep for the very beginning: 'listen', 'who are you talking to when no one is around', 'breath on the back of your neck', etc. I immediately think of 'The Silence'. The word 'silence' comes up at least twice, I think. Then, in the orphanage, there is a monster under a sheet. In that scene, we have a combination of 'ancient secret monster affecting humanity' (The Silence) and 'monster with a looking at it thingy' (The Silence and the Weeping Angels). Either this is a re-hash of ideas we've seen far too recently or it's something other than what it appears to be. Moffat says it's neither and we imagined it.
The Good:
Capaldi is better. Clearer. He reminded me of a number of previous Doctors, Baker most of all.
The acting is pretty good.
Very nice sets and lighting and cinematography.
The Ugly:
Lens flares.
Invid: I absolutely think Moffat needs a producer or someone to ask him "why?" a dozen times a day. when you have a transient writing staff of 12, the show is likely watered down to mediocrity but adding 1 exec could fix a lot for this show.
Feel free to start flaming me. I don't like Legends of Korra or Gravity, either.
Off my podcast app:
All of Whine and Space - A couple of average British guys talking Doctor Who, movies, etc. They typically are commentaries. Sexual comments are not uncommon. So, NSFW? Maybe.
Caustic Soda - Friends of Horsetrack Hooligans. A structured show with knowledgeable guests. Episodes cover pretty grim topics.
Extended Edition - Um, is Jimmy reading this? Yeah! Extended edition!
Film Sack - A fairly organized discussion of movies and tv. Sometimes they do commentaries.
Horsetrack Hooligans - Three Canadians: a plumber, and IT guy, and a painter talk about stuff.
How Did This Get Made - You must have heard of this by now. Great fun.
MMM Commentaries - Commentaries for James Bond, Doctor Who, Game of Thrones and the like. Australians. I've been hooked since they reasoned that Littlefinger didn't own the dagger.
Motley Fool - Financial podcast. I listen only occasionally.
NPR Wait Wait don't tell me - Radio game show in podcast form. Great guests.
KFBK Garden Show - My Local station 2 hour garden show in podcast form.
Tysto - You know Tysto. His US President-related commentaries demonstrate his knowledge of the White House. He tries to avoid it but he is also a real car nut and lets slip car trivia sometimes. Tysto has VERY mainstream tastes. So, you can listen to his commentary to see what an average moviegoer is thinking about a movie. His 'sight unseen' commentaries are even more revealing.
My Norwegian sounds just like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmOdI80sC5U
In all seriousness, I guess I'm just not into people doing accents. It bugs me when I notice and everyone slips up from time-to-time. Even John Barrowman's American accent slips into something odd sometimes. If one must attempt an American accent, I think the key is to try to practice a very specific local accent, as no one speaks 'Standard American', 'Standard Southern', etc so it always sounds odd. Even then, you'll be lacking regional vocabulary and won't know how to pronounce words you haven't heard. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQqozmwlE00
Most of all, Norwegian is a cool accent. Why change?
Fun podcast, Faldor!
Also, thank god someone called out Tom regarding accent criticism. BTW: "The Norwegian with a sleek american accent". As an American, Tom's accent is confusing within seconds of hearing it. Maybe ask Tom to edit the page to: "The Norwegian with a sleek American-ish accent".
bullet3 wrote:...instead of the "fuck yeah Stannis" moment it should be.
Wait...are we supposed to be cheering for Stannis?? He's dull and an asshole, worse than that he's a dull asshole.
Yeah. There are a lot of 'book Stannis' fans who have been upset about this for a long time. The tone of his arrival in the north is the inevitable result of the showrunners changing the character. Stannis is supposed to be a lot like Ned Stark: honorable, loyal, obedient, conventional, and...boring to many people. The show Stannis is made more creepy with his Red Woman attachment. He is more whiny about being king. He is portrayed as a negligent husband and father (rather than someone who is a bit cold and very concerned with doing what is proper). In short, HBO Stannis has been built to be a menace and it is hard to reverse that to make him a savior and ally.
In my view, Stannis in the book IS a menace. But, he is not meant to be overtly menacing. There is no malice in what he does. He is unforgiving and an implacable adversary. And, as Jon Snow is trying to rally the Watch, Stannis' arrival is both helpful and hindering. It's great to have more fighters. But, Stannis' motives are in question in the show (in the book, I recall it being less of a calculated power grab and more of a 'that's what the kingdom needs most').
As Stannis believes he is supposed to be king, they are heading to a direct conflict. I think the reader is meant to wonder who would be a better king: Jon, emotional and inexperienced but a good guy; or Stannis, emotionless and experienced, can be a bastard if it is necessary.
Agreed.
I kind of like the idea of shooting Ronan, the gem falls, shoot Ronan 5 more times while laughing maniacally, and Quill carefully scoops the gem into an orb.
I forgive the unnecessary CGI ending bit because of the awesome, unconventional distraction prior and the lack of a generic fistfight ending.
A Touch of Cloth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Touch_of_Cloth
Series 3, episode 2 blew me away. I am used to 1 in 3 jokes making me laugh (or less). Usually, I mostly enjoy the background posters and signs and touches like the back of heads on the back of the work board. But, this episode hit me again and again. It was as though someone said there won't be another series and the writes said 'F*ck it! Let's do all the jokes." And when I thought it was over, they ran a 'next time on...'. And that was all funny, too.
The Smoking Room. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smoking_Room
I think Robert Webb is funny. He is central to the show but it is still an ensemble piece. I don't laugh out loud often. But, there is a lot of familiar workplace material. I also like seeing how characters change as episodes reveal more about them. For example, in the pilot, Barry is nervous about a promotion interview. I felt for him. By episode 4, I've learned he is an incredible screw-up and, by the Christmas episode, he's completed an entire crossword without having a single correct answer. I can't think of many shows that so effortlessly establish and then change characters with a single conversation.
As so often, I agree with the bad: the ending was moronic and the screwdriver misused. I'll throw in my own previous misuse: Tennant used it to hack computers and electronics of all kinds in blazing time while Baker had to fiddle with it to open a lock. I'm not a stickler for what it can or can't do as that has been wildly inconsistent since the relaunch.
As for dialogues and direction, yes. Yes, there was energy and the whole thing hung together and had a pretty consistent tone. But, I could also say they found a lovely glade and the castle seemed really castle-y. Let's assume things we don't talk about were OK or at least not deal-breakers for enjoying the episode.
As this is Doctor Who, technical quibbles are basically out. Why do they need gold? What does it do for engines? REASONS. We really can't ask for more. The ending only drives home how bad that can be.
So, I'm all about story with Doctor Who. And I am having problems with Clara. Again. I previously linked a podcast that discusses the ep1 to ep2 problem. Now, there is another:
Episode 1: Clara might not travel with the Doctor. He's changed. The Doctor ditched her with killer robots nearby and she's not OK with that. A phone call changed her mind and she decided to mull it over with coffee.
Episode 2: They never got coffee. The Doctor ditched her and she had to pick up with her life. 3 weeks later, the Doctor shows up because he says he needs her (not to say 'hello'). Soldiers threaten them. People die. Clara is asked about the Doctor and she says he's mad and he's right. Clara is twice asked if the Doctor is a good man and can't say so. The first time, she doesn't even answer.
Episode 3: The Doctor asks when Clara started believing in impossible heroes and she looks at him to imply he is one. Robin Hood tells the Doctor he can see that the Doctor is Clara's hero.
I took a break before continuing as I can't figure this out.
Maybe this is incredibly fast character relationship development? Maybe she is associating Capaldi with Smith and that means she is getting over what is intended as a bump in their friendship? I just don't know.
As for the plot, this was tired. Worn thin. A Robin Hood episode is not only one of the most common time-travel plots, it's historically inaccurate. I would rather see Prince John represented neutrally. Maybe the Sheriff could be the good guy and Robin Hood is stealing gold from the rich and giving silver and gems to the poor. Robin Hood could have a 'forest hideout' in some caves which connect to a crashed spaceship. And his merry men? Robots.
The show mentioned King Richard. Why not say John is raising taxes for the Crusades? Or that Richard is barely ever in England and he prefers to speak French? A bit of actual history would have colored things in favor of The Doctor saying Robin Hood isn't real. And, it might have been slightly educational.
My main point was agreeing with BigDamn: Quill isn't wielding the stone safely because he's half magic alien. His father barely comes up in the comics and doesn't give him any powers. Repeat: 'Star-Lord' has no powers.
The Power Gem "Accesses all power and energy that ever has or will exist, and can boost the other gems' effects. Allows the user to duplicate almost any physical superhuman ability and grants Omnipotence." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_Gems#Description
So, Quill survived the gem with friendship and whatever. But, the Nova chief thought 'there must be something more to him' and looked into the medical records. She saw half alien genes and said 'that's why a skeevy human survived the power gem'. Racism. [I actually think they were just bookending the movie with father teasers, but the way they did it looks like racism.]
...they're not superheros, they're just ordinary folks coming together to save the day, and then they pull a bullshit
SPOILERoh, you can hold the stone because your father is actually some ancient galactic super-race or some shit. I'm so sick to death of this pre-destination bullshit, why can't he just be an average kid?
I didn't write it so I can't say for sure, but I think this is a red herring. In the comics, the stones don't work like that and just about all the Guardians have had a gem at some point (and plenty of humans, too). I think this is the Marvel Cinematic Universe showing galactic racism. There have been mentions in multiple movies that humans are scum and not ready for interplanetary conflict: Thor thinks the Earth needs babysitting; Loki thinks humans need to be dominated; Yondu disparages humans even while saying he might have eaten Quill;
In short, my understanding is that the head of the Novas is a racist and thinks Quill succeeded in spite of being human. So, she's looking for a reason to say he is special. [If you don't quite see it, consider how different the movie would be with these tropes: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M … AreSpecial http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M … IsSuperior ]
These guys are a pair of knuckleheads but eventually stumbled into what I consider the biggest problem.
http://thedoctorwhorewatchpodcast.blogs … -into.html
At the ending of the last episode, I felt Clara was being written inconsistently: she really likes Dr smith but is uncomfortable with Dr Capaldo; She sacrificed herself to help Dr Smith but won't give Dr Capaldo the benefit of the doubt; etc.
So the premier ends with her giving Capaldo a chance (since Smith told her to) and they go for coffee. Then, as mentioned in the second episode: CAPALDO DITCHED HER. FOR THREE WEEKS. She only grudgingly is accompanying him, presumably to make up her mind during a chat and coffee. But, he leaves. As far as I know, that would be the end of her interest in him. Instead, she accompanies him again and just bickers a bit. She agrees to shrink and enter an alien killing machine on behalf of an unfamiliar space army which threatened to summarily execute her and the Doctor. Worse, she is constantly saying knowledgeable things like 'he's crazy and right' while also maintaining she doesn't know him and if 'he is a good man'. The writing in general has been inconsistent but Clara is the glaring example.
The Whinecast also pointed out this is basically the same story as the Eccleston episode 'Dalek'.
Great comment about Sci-fi needing story. Every time I hear someone call 'super-hero' a genre I think the same. A story with super-heroes can also be a mystery just as a Sci-fi in space can also be horror. I think Sci-fi is more setting than genre.
Meanwhile, in the TARDIS: I think Doctor Who has been plagued by this problem since its inception. The original series had staff writers and budget problems, etc. Since 2005, we have Davies and Moffat running the show and that has come with both good and bad consequences.
Sold! I'm going to check out season 1 of Justified.
I agree on Breaking Bad, also. I keep wanting to see it, but I am rarely in the mood for the subject matter (I usually catch up on classics like The French Connection, instead).
I tried to autotune Roscoe Lee Browne's story scene into a song. The whole scene is on YouTube. After a couple hours of trying, I am not skilled enough to do it.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Jp12x
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.