Dr Who -- kinda lame this season

[delericho]

Don't you find that statement a little ironic in the context of a discussion about a show featuring 900 year old, self-reincarnating alien time traveler?

Actually, I don't. That's just an element of the premise of the show, which I accept going in. If, however, the plot revolves around a character who is known to be extremely intelligent and blessed with a very level head suddenly becoming an incompetent moron, I have a problem.

However, there is a huge problem with applying 'real logic' too rigorously, and that is that every story becomes a non-story. Either the protagonist sidesteps the entire plot (Back to the Future III), or the villain wipes out the good guys without a thought (the Evil Overlord list).

And in D&D, every adventure is a TPK, because the bad guys put their most vicious traps in the most awkward places in their lairs, wire them precisely so that the Rogue who goes looking for them in the 'right' places gets hit by the other trap... oh, and the bad guys concentrate their forces at the first sign of an incursion, so that the PCs find themselves immediately outnumbered and slain.

Basically, 'real logic' is all well and good... but if you apply it too far, the story falls apart very quickly.

 

[Plane Sailing]

As for the girl, I'm not so sure. Some of the boys were shown to be be not a lot older than she was. This was after they'd shot up the scarecrows and the Headmaster had been killed. More to the point, to many boys that age girls are The Enemy. Even more to the point, if you're not going to let kids get killed, don't put them into situations where they probably should be. That's just plain cheating.

I'm a Brit, and I can tell you that the children's unwillingness to actually shoot someone standing in front of them in cold blood is very realistic. Considering how difficult it is to even get normal adults to shoot one another in wartime (an interesting commentary on this is available to read here http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/grossman.html) I felt that the childrens reluctance to fire was exactly right.

And I have to say that considering girls to be 'the enemy' has never (in the UK at least) equated them to being an enemy you want to physically harm. It was always a sort of 'cold war' at best, all posturing and not wanting them to play in the same patch of playground...

Cheers

 

[Elf Witch]

Ok, I'll grant that it wasn't as PC as I was thinking. I still think that the Headmaster should have shot at least one of the Family.

As for the girl, I'm not so sure. Some of the boys were shown to be be not a lot older than she was. This was after they'd shot up the scarecrows and the Headmaster had been killed. More to the point, to many boys that age girls are The Enemy. Even more to the point, if you're not going to let kids get killed, don't put them into situations where they probably should be. That's just plain cheating.

I don't accept the proposition that 'story logic' trumps real locic. If you can't think of something that isn't dumb in the first place, don't do it!

Doctor Who has killed children before. In the episode with Sarah Jane the headmaster eats a little girl.

In this case it made sense based on the time setting and the students involved that thye would not shoot down a little english girl. Sure boys may have looked at girls as the enemy but they were also brought up that woman folk both young and old were their responsibility to protect. They writers did not cheat in this epsiode they wrote proper behavior for the time setting.

 

[Mallus]

Ok, but it can get to be a bit much at times.

Yeah, it can... I think I cut the show's plotting a lot of slack because I'm totally charmed by the way they write the characters.

 

[Mallus]

That's just an element of the premise of the show...

A children's show, when you get right down to it.

If, however, the plot revolves around a character who is known to be extremely intelligent and blessed with a very level head suddenly becoming an incompetent moron, I have a problem.

Unfortunately, so much action sci-fi depends on people acting like morons. If they didn't, they would get into the wonderful improbable and deliriously contrived situations that make adventure programming adventurous.

It's hard to have 'good dumb fun' without a modicum of dumb. But you're right, too much can spoil the experience. I really appreciate writers with the finesse to pull that off.

 

[WayneLigon]

...but because of the PCness of it. ... Ok, I'll accept that the students were too stunned at that to blast her into little tiny pieces then and there... but not after she taunts them! She was dead as soon as she opened her mouth.

The point is that these children have been playing at war up until now, with their paper targets and whatnot. When faced with the real thing, a real flesh and blood enemy, they can't do it. They're not ready, and won't be ready.

 

[TheLe]

I was dissapoited in this 2 parter as well. I can see what they were trying to achieve with making the Doctor human but it just wasn't executed as well as I feel it could have been.

I have mixed emotions. I liked part 2 overall, but I really disliked part 1.

Once again, the first episode was rushed. The problem was the first 2 minutes. The show should not have started there at all. It would have been better if:

1) Episode 1 started with the Doctor Waking up, leaving the audience in the dark

2) The added a third episode, which I will call episode 0, that would explain the events that led up to episode 1.

Keep in mind that I HATE multi-episode stories, but I think they are just moving too fast with this -- I have absolutely no attachment to the characters at all.

`Le

 

[Volaran]

Doctor Who has killed children before. In the episode with Sarah Jane the headmaster eats a little girl.

Off screen. Much as with human vs human violence in Doctor Who, RTD seems to have some guidelines as to what can happen on-screen and what is implied off-screen.

 

[sniffles]

I have mixed emotions. I liked part 2 overall, but I really disliked part 1.

Once again, the first episode was rushed. The problem was the first 2 minutes. The show should not have started there at all. It would have been better if:

1) Episode 1 started with the Doctor Waking up, leaving the audience in the dark

2) The added a third episode, which I will call episode 0, that would explain the events that led up to episode 1.

Keep in mind that I HATE multi-episode stories, but I think they are just moving too fast with this -- I have absolutely no attachment to the characters at all.

`Le

Aw, come on! You really wanted them to explain everything to you in advance? Where's the fun in that?

I personally really enjoyed the writers just throwing the audience in at the "deep end" as it were, leaving us to find out later just why the Doctor was in that situation. I wouldn't want them to do that every story, but sometimes it's fun to me not to know everything that happened. I enjoy using my imagination to fill in the gaps.

These two episodes were based on a BBC novel published back in the '90s and featuring the 7th Doctor and his then-companion, who only appeared in the books. I read the book, Human Nature by Paul Cornell, after seeing these two episodes and I'm really glad they didn't stick closely to the plot of the novel. The story would have been very slow and meandering and the villains weren't really threatening at all. Plus the relationship between the Doctor and Joan was really unconvincing in the book, but I enjoyed the way it developed in the televised story.

I'm amazed that I just said I liked a filmization of a book better than I liked the book!

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Tonight's episode, 'Blink', was pretty good. I didn't find it especially scary though. Somewhat disturbing, but not too terribly scary. Only one complaint: "You can't kill a rock." No, but you can smash a statue. All three of us who were watching said the same thing at the same time.