|
Author
|
Topic: Doctor Who
|
soulshine
Mini Geek
Member # 5367
Member Rated:
|
posted July 09, 2006 12:50
Just seen the last episode of the new series last night.
Don't know how many of you are in the UK, but it's been on for 13 weeks, and overall has been pretty enjoyable - although the lowest points of this series were far lower than the lowest points of the previous one!
I didn't think last night's episode was quite as good as the previous weeks... It was emotional gubbins of pretty top quality, only the conflict between the Daleks and Cybermen letting things down slightly.
Still damn fine stuff ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
So...anyone a fan? (Or not!)
Posts: 76 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
uilleann
Discontinued
|
posted July 09, 2006 13:08
Ugh, I can't stand Rose crying, someone needs to stab her and put her out of her misery. Can't we have an assistant who doesn't sob, damn it? Argh.
However, I was really loving those four Daleks roasting all the Cybermen =D That was funny. And the Daleks' sense of humour is top-notch for a machine race ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Now all we need is a ninjas vs pirates episode!!
IP: Logged
|
|
soulshine
Mini Geek
Member # 5367
Member Rated:
|
posted July 09, 2006 13:22
quote:
Originally posted by uilleann:
Now all we need is a ninjas vs pirates episode!!
Ninjas and proper zombies in one episode would do me!
They had kind-of ninjas in the second episode of this series, they just need to sort out how they shoot them a bit.
I wasn't sure about David Tennant at first, but I've grown to like him
Last night's episode had it's cheesy moments I thought - the 'Nooooooooooooo!' and various bits of squeeling from them both as Rose almost got sucked in to the Void springs to mind. (Although the 'Noooooooo!' was nowhere near as bad as in 'Revenge of the Sith' - that was pure comedy!)
Posts: 76 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
uilleann
Discontinued
|
posted July 09, 2006 13:44
OK then, why did the void try to suck in Rose and the Doctor using air pressure? Since the air around them was not, as far as I was aware, full of those speckly dots.
The only good "nooooo" of course is the one in Worms =)
IP: Logged
|
|
soulshine
Mini Geek
Member # 5367
Member Rated:
|
posted July 09, 2006 14:10
I'd be interested to know that too!
When I heard Russell Davies would be writing the new series, I was pretty impressed - some of his earlier work has been outstanding.
I don't know about you, but I've thought some of his 'Doctor Who' has been a bit less than outstanding and, as you point out, slightly questionable in places!
Posts: 76 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
uilleann
Discontinued
|
posted July 09, 2006 14:21
The new Doctor Who series are mostly preposterous but it's just something daft to watch. (Anyone else but me wonder how in The Doctor Dances, the nanogenes were conveniently invislble when we were not meant to be aware of what they were getting up to, but visible when we needed to see them? This is hardly an accidental plot hole ;)
The thing is, so much (science-)fiction is riddled with loopy plot holes that I can't take any of it seriously any more, which I think is a shame as believable and gripping fiction is nicer than that which you only laugh at for being ridiculous (can you say Abzorbaloff and sentient, organic paving slabs?)
Babylon 5, though, I don't recall finding a single plot hole in that anywhere, so either it was genuinely That Good (it felt like it) or else I just didn't understand enough of it to work out where there might be holes :)
Now, when I was a kid, Doctor Who had long since finished on terrestrial TV (and the same applies to you but you probably just had cable/satellite and watched the UK Gold re-runs ;) so I simply read all the books. And boy did I love them. No bad acting or wobbly sets, so even a nitpickety pedant like myself could enjoy them; I was surprised on skimming through one of them lately though how childish the tone of the books was, something that when I was, say, 14 or 15 I was still simply immune to, but I'd find it unbearable now. Great reading at the time, though :)
IP: Logged
|
|
soulshine
Mini Geek
Member # 5367
Member Rated:
|
posted July 09, 2006 14:36
Too true. The new series has been riddled with plot holes and ridiculous leaps of logic, but it has been fun.
The only good thing to come out of the paving slab farce, was the rather too obvious sex life joke - a bit much for tea time TV, maybe, but it made me laugh. It's a highbrow house, here.
Babylon 5 was good - the guy who wrote that also did a cartoon called 'Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors', which not many people seem to have come across.
I think the two series are pretty different, though; B5 was far more adult, and nowhere near as fun.
'Doctor Who' was still on terrestrial when I was little - Sylvester McCoy was my doctor, although I had loads of videos of the others, too. The series ended in 1989.
If you watch the last story now, you can see the roots of the modern show in that. I think it's come back exactly as it would have been if it had never left our screens - quite an achievement!
The old show still stands up to viewing now, I think. Ok, some of the sets and effects (and acting) are a bit dodgy, but the stories and imagination and enthuisiasm are still evident and wonderfully enjoyable
Posts: 76 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
uilleann
Discontinued
|
posted July 09, 2006 15:24
Yeah, I did realise after I posted that, that it was still on TV during my lifetime but it finished before I learnt that it was on TV! D'oh. I probably only got into Doctor Who around that time via the books.
I never read any Colin Baker or Sylvester McCoy books that I am aware of, although my cousin had quite a few. (We got into Doctor Who when my parents were given a box of books and in there were two copies of Doctor Who and the Loch Ness Monster, and I kept one copy and gave my cousin the other. We were both hooked =)
I'm a little iffy on the background though. Doctor Who has never to my knowledge satisfactorily addressed time travel and to me it remains too paradoxical to fantasize over as well as -- as Star Trek has shown -- a cheap and annoying cop out at times. However, a dimensionally transcendental vehicle is fantastically cool, and I'd like that in something that only travels in space. And the TARDIS is so cosy with it, too, safe and shielded inside, and all that space wrapped up in a little box.
I'm certainly no Doctor Who fan now -- I guess I just grew out of it -- but very definitely was as a kid and it's still fun to watch.
As for Babylon 5 being adult and serious, that is true. It also had a very harsh edge of realism about it that you really did not know everthing that was going on and never would find out. Very dark, moody and morbid yet also very enjoyable to watch. Sometimes, though, you need something with a feel good factor to cheer you up, such as some delectably goofy storylines Hehe I watched Encounter at Farpoint yesterday since they were re-showing it, and that was goofy too -- messed-up script, bad acting and unbelievable characters (what is it with Yar and Worf being desperate to attack everyone? And Troi's suffering.) Picard was certainly portrayed well, intriguing and strange. They also had The Cage on, and I can understand now some of the criticism that the show faced at the time such as Number One being far too cold. Gorgeous, but cold. I didn't find Spock too Satanic but I appreciate the more rounded character he became when they redid the show with the new cast, Spock was awesome =)
IP: Logged
|
|
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071
Member Rated:
|
posted July 09, 2006 16:57
I enjoy Dr Who because it doesn't take itself too seriously. Nearly all SF has huge gaps in logic and plotting (along with a very shaky grasp of science!), so an element of irony or camp makes the whole deal easier to swallow for me. Conversely I do not enjoy Star Trek because of its over solemn and slightly portentous nature. The sense of humour is also one of the main things that went missing in the last 3 Star Wars films.
--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton
Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GrumpySteen
Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170
|
posted July 09, 2006 19:06
Callipygous wrote:
Conversely I do not enjoy Star Trek because of its over solemn and slightly portentous nature.
/me stuffs a tribble down your pants.
--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.
Posts: 6296 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Famous Druid
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769
Member Rated:
|
posted July 09, 2006 21:19
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
The sense of humour is also one of the main things that went missing in the last 3 Star Wars films.
You didn't find Jar-Jar Binks funny?
Good God man, what's the matter with you ?
--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.
Posts: 10318 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
uilleann
Discontinued
|
posted July 10, 2006 05:34
Hm, I don't think the entire of Star Trek can be generalised quite that easily and it's had its funny moments. I think the funniest one for me had to be the DS9 episode with the re-animated Vorta, but there were plenty of funny moments with characters like Spock and Mr Data. Yes, the show could be very serious at times, but I considered that to be a good thing -- it made you stop and think.
Science fiction will typically never portray science as we know it now since, well, the whole point is that we're imagining a greater grasp on science and technology than we have now. And the laws of physics are subject to change as our understanding of the universe grows. It's more important that you stick to your own rules than those of reality (which seems to be hard enough), but it's still possible to write plots that are very silly no matter what you try to explain away.
And one of my favourite oddities, the TARDIS doors are not the same design on the inside as the outside. They're think and chunky seen from the inside, and thin like a police box door seen from the outside (which they are). This makes no sense whatsoever, and if the camera were to have to follow someone through the doors without a break in filming, there would be a slight problem ...
I guess someone somewhere has written an explanation for the chamaeleon circuit. After all, the Master's TARDIS has a working one and that's been plenty of things where the doors aren't even remotely the same shape, or, for that matter, the doorframe! (Just that in books, you never gave it any thought and I've never seen it filmed)
So yes, if the whole show is daft it's a bit easier to swallow but I don't have that natural let-go ability and still pick everything to pieces no matter how daft it is :)
IP: Logged
|
|
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071
Member Rated:
|
posted July 10, 2006 06:40
quote:
Originally posted by uilleann:
Science fiction will typically never portray science as we know it now since, well, the whole point is that we're imagining a greater grasp on science and technology than we have now. And the laws of physics are subject to change as our understanding of the universe grows.
Among the things in SF that I suggest are impossible to explain scientifically are
1. A large majority of planets have an atmosphere that humans and all alien races can survive on without the need of any breathing apparatus or protective clothing. Indeed as far as I can tell no spaceships in Star Trek or Star Wars seem to have such things so perhaps I should make that all planets.
2. People can leave or be ejected from space ships or space stations into space, which is of course a vacuum without exploding instantly.
3. Sound (particularly from any massive explosion) travels through space.
4. Light-sabres render the bearer impervious to bullets and other projectile weapons.
--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton
Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ashitaka
SuperFan!
Member # 4924
Member Rated:
|
posted July 10, 2006 06:52
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
[QB]
1. A large majority of planets have an atmosphere that humans and all alien races can survive on without the need of any breathing apparatus or protective clothing. Indeed as far as I can tell no spaceships in Star Trek or Star Wars seem to have such things so perhaps I should make that all planets.
They just don't go to those other planets 'cause they can't breathe the atmosphere. Of course they make thier spaceships "alien accessible" so that as many species as possible can work together. Though I do remember a DS9 episode about a woman who grew up on a low gravity planet and had to adapt to the gravity of DS9. I think the episode was called "Melora"
2. People can leave or be ejected from space ships or space stations in space, which is of course a vacuum without exploding instantly.
I don't remember this happening in any star trek or Star wars episodes. Well there was the "disaster episode on TNG where Geordie and the Doctor Crusher had to open the Cargo bay doors while in the cargo bay to put out a fire. But you can argue that they were just exposed to low pressure not the complete lack of pressure.
3. Sound (particularly from any massive explosion) travels through space.
Well the electromagnetic radiation created by the exploding starship travels through space, Hits the Spaceship (and creates a sound), and then travels to the ears of the occupants. So you are really hearing the sound of the electromagnetic radiation hitting the hull of the ship.
4. Light-sabres render the bearer impervious to bullets and other projectile weapons.
No they don't, the light saber wielder is able to intercept and deflect the projectiles with thier sabers.
--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"
-Assif Mandvi
Posts: 3008 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
uilleann
Discontinued
|
posted July 10, 2006 07:59
EM radiation creates sound on impact? The debris will, I can't imagine radiation doing that. But then you're limited to the speed of the debris which would work exactly the same as the speed of sound, in that there would be a clear lag.
People explode in a vacuum? Apparently they don't (I can't quote where I read this), and nothing spectacular happens, but it's all the same none too pleasant. I'd have to search the Web for credible sources on space exposure.
No-one to my knowledge uses bullets in Star Wars, probably because a light saber would be useless against them (since you'd have to be quite the Jedi Master to swing the saber into their path). It's bad enough trying to believe what they portray on Star Wars now where incoming energy shots are spaced far apart enough that the good guys have time to swing against each one.
I like how Daleks absorb bullets with their shields, that's nicely done. No evidence of a basis for the effect but I don't believe we need one.
Now, the whole all aliens are sexually compatible, all alien writing is readable by anyone and all alien cockpit controls are obvious even when they're electronic, all aliens breathe air and thrive in a 1 G gravitational field strength... (Don't get me started on the bad guys are typically the ugly ones...)
Sci-fi on the TV screen and even on the movie screen is pretty much impossible to portray realistically given simple time and cost constraints (imagine all the CGI needed) as well as the viewing time involved to show all the slow processes of dealing with radically different environments and people.
In written work however it would be possible to attempt a lot more realistic portrayal of deep space (and in written work you have better control over time -- "The next ten minutes were spend performing ....") I would like to see an attempt to really portray space travel and exploration in the distant future as it really is. I don't mean portrayal using today's science, you're allowed all sorts of toys like faster than light travel and universal translators as long as you can put together a coherent explanation, but all the aliens are not going to breathe air for example or walk on land...
And y'all forgot the most obvious one: in space, there is no "up".
IP: Logged
|
|
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071
Member Rated:
|
posted July 10, 2006 08:09
Please! None of those explanations can be taken seriously! Have you ever met anyone with reflexes quick enough to deflect a bullet, and if you assume this is one of the remarkable attributes of a jedi then why don't their light-sabre duels also proceed in bullet time? Light-sabres exist in the Star Wars films because George Lucas enjoyed Errol Flynn swashbuckling films, and because they are just so cooool. But thanks for reminding me that at ground level all planets also have an equal gravitational force too.
Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike SF. SF can often be a vehicle for some interesting philosophical and political speculation, and there are good SF writers and film makers, but the majority of it is good entertaining nonsense, and for that reason I prefer it when it doesn't take itself too seriously.
--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton
Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
soulshine
Mini Geek
Member # 5367
Member Rated:
|
posted July 10, 2006 09:58
It's funny, as the more serious episodes of both Doctor Who or B5 (or Star Trek, to a lesser extent) seem to be the most widely appreciated ones! Yet I'd agree with people who say that sci-fi can be at it's best when it doesn't take itself too seriously... Odd.
I think the explanation for the chameleon circuit got as far as 'it broke'. Hard science in action!
Posts: 76 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
uilleann
Discontinued
|
posted July 10, 2006 11:02
Soulshine: The chamaeleon circuit being broken explains what?
Callipygous: Whose explanations? Besides, the whole Jedi thing is more complex as you have to address issues like telekinesis and telepathy, which are intricately related.
IP: Logged
|
|
soulshine
Mini Geek
Member # 5367
Member Rated:
|
posted July 10, 2006 11:29
Uilleann, you'd said:
"I guess someone somewhere has written an explanation for the chamaeleon circuit. After all, the Master's TARDIS has a working one and that's been plenty of things where the doors aren't even remotely the same shape, or, for that matter, the doorframe! (Just that in books, you never gave it any thought and I've never seen it filmed)"
I was just saying that the explanation for the chamaeleon circuit was: 'It broke'. (What would J. Michael Straczynski say to that?! I guess he'd have a half decent explanation, revealed over 5 years or so.)
Posts: 76 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
uilleann
Discontinued
|
posted July 10, 2006 12:29
I know what I wrote, your comment still makes no sense. The point is, the doors as you see them on the inside, and as you see them on the outside, are not even close to the same thickness, and from what I remember reading about how the Master had a truck for a TARDIS, not even the same outline. So what do they look like side-on? Thin? Thick?
This is not because the chamaeleon circuit is broken, but because the TARDIS has a rigid inside set design with doors that match, which are the same doors as the ones that you see from the outside even when they're not the same shape any more. It doesn't make sense the way it is portrayed. If you hold the edge of the door, how thick is it? It's like a devil's pitchfork, but worse.
IP: Logged
|
|
soulshine
Mini Geek
Member # 5367
Member Rated:
|
posted July 10, 2006 13:03
I think that's the problem with Doctor Who, really - it doesn't make sense!
From what I can work out, the TARDIS has two sets of doors - the outer set, and an interior pair which don't necessarily have to match the outer set.
I believe a TARDIS can be designed and reconfigured in any form a Time Lord (or set designer) wishes and, being dimensionally transcendental, sets can be flung together without too much thought or cash!
I think the fourth Doctor had a swimming pool in there at one time
Posts: 76 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
uilleann
Discontinued
|
posted July 10, 2006 13:05
Yes I think it is supposed to have two sets of doors. It's not filmed like that though ;)
But ... what's in between the doors?
IP: Logged
|
|
GrumpySteen
Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170
|
posted July 10, 2006 13:18
The TARDIS is a bit telepathic, so it obviously works like telepathic paper. You see the doors the way the TARDIS wants you to see them. Or you would, except that bit of the circuit broke and it's stuck in its present form.
Completely scientific
--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.
Posts: 6296 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071
Member Rated:
|
posted July 10, 2006 16:39
quote:
Originally posted by uilleann:
Callipygous: Whose explanations? Besides, the whole Jedi thing is more complex as you have to address issues like telekinesis and telepathy, which are intricately related.
Sorry Uilly I should have made it clear I was replying to Ash. As you might imagine, for me the new age psychobabble jedi stuff is the aspect of Star Wars that appeals least to me. I could go on indefinitely about the lack of any science in science fiction, for instance what do you think the actual probability is of any alien race having a strong physical resemblance to homo sapiens. In TV SF a good 90% or more do. This is not important to the value of the films and you can say exactly the same thing about many other genres, for instance in the real West, unlike Westerns, revolvers were hopelessly erratic and almost impossible to aim accurately, so there were no sharp shooters or any fastest gun in the West nonsense. My only point is that SF is just another fairy story, like a Western, or Robin Hood, or an Errol Flynn swashbuckler, but there are more SF films and fans that take it far more seriously than that, which seems just a little stupid to me. Unsurprisingly the SF writers I admire most are ones like Douglas Adams and Kurt Vonnegut, who while still having great affection for, and exploiting the serious potential of the genre for philosophical enquiry, political satire etc., are also very alive to its more ludicrous aspects. Vonnegut's fictional bad SF writer Kilgour Trout is a brilliant creation. I also understand Alec Guinness's exasperation with the very earnest questions he would get from hard core Star Wars fans about Obi Wan Kenobi, a piece of nonsense he knocked off for money, and luckily provided him with a healthy pension as he owned a piece of the film. "Get a Life" was the advice he gave them, in much politer terms I'm sure.
--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton
Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Famous Druid
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769
Member Rated:
|
posted July 10, 2006 22:14
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
I also understand Alec Guinness's exasperation with the very earnest questions he would get from hard core Star Wars fans about Obi Wan Kenobi, a piece of nonsense he knocked off for money, and luckily provided him with a healthy pension as he owned a piece of the film. "Get a Life" was the advice he gave them, in much politer terms I'm sure.
J.K. Rowling gets approached by Harry Potter fans, with detailed stories of their 'research' to get various spells from the book to work. When she explains that she knows nothing about magic and just made all that stuff up, they get quite miffed.
Sad, really, really sad.
--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.
Posts: 10318 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
