Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«10 »
  • Locked thread
idonotlikepeas
May 29, 2010

This reasoning is possible for forums user idonotlikepeas!


Doctor Spaceman posted:

"Is the Doctor a superhero" is always a fun thing to consider.

To be perfectly honest, I've never even considered him any other way. He hits a lot of the same beats for me, right down to the supervillains melodramatically threatening to blow up cities. You could easily make an argument that Hartnell wasn't playing a superhero, but after that...

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

NieR Occomata
Jan 18, 2009


cargohills posted:

I feel like an attempt at a British superhero could have been quite funny.

?

Captain Britain, however, actually rules a lot.

AndwhatIseeisme
Mar 30, 2010

Being alive is pretty much a constant stream of embarrassment.


Fun Shoe

idonotlikepeas posted:

Superman is, fundamentally, an actual god that would prefer to be a human being, and that ties himself to human values because he believes humanity is important. Batman (my personal favorite, superherowise) is the opposite; a human that, by dint of talent, money, and considerable effort, has made himself into something more than human because he believes that sacrificing his humanity is the best way to serve others. Superman is actually Clark Kent wearing an disguise, even though it should be the other way around, and similarly, Bruce Wayne is just Batman wearing a disguise, even though it should be the other way around there, too.

This drove me absolutely nuts in Kill Bill Volume 2 when Bill describes Clark Kent as the made up personality.

Wolfechu
May 2, 2009

All the world's a stage I'm going through


I'll say this about this thread, getting some amazing comic recommendations. Definitely checking out that FF Hickman run.

Jerusalem
May 20, 2004

Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way or another.


Yeah, Superman isn't a hero because of his powers, he's a hero because of his upbringing. Part of the reason I dislike the Snyder Superman so much is that Ma and Pa Kent don't instill the values in Clark that lead to Superman commonly being called an overgrown boy scout in the comics - they actively encourage him to hide away, to fear exposure or to just not help people "if he doesn't feel like it".

Doctor Spaceman posted:

"Is the Doctor a superhero" is always a fun thing to consider.

One of my favorite jokes is in Last Christmas when the Doctor mistakes a description of himself as a description of Santa Claus

CityMidnightJunky
May 11, 2013

Awww!!


AndwhatIseeisme posted:

This drove me absolutely nuts in Kill Bill Volume 2 when Bill describes Clark Kent as the made up personality.

It's odd with Superman since he actually has two secret identities (I'm purely going by the Donner version, I don't know if the comics are different): Superman, and bumbling, glasses wearing reporter Clark. So in this sense Bill's right. Clark Kent, the 'real' person, is only really able to be himself when he's back in Kansas with his parents, who taught him to be selfless and humble and instilled the values he tries to live by. He spends the rest of the time switching between two false personas: Superman, who is trying to live up to his own ideal of humanity, and Clark Kent, who is trying to not get noticed, whilst still trying to incorporate those values into them. Throw in Kal-El, Son of Krypton in there as well, and I'm surprised he doesn't periodically have a full on mental breakdown from his identity issues.

Thinking about it, it's a good extreme example of who we are compared to how we present ourselves, which is a very universal conflict that pretty much everyone goes through.

CityMidnightJunky fucked around with this message at Jul 9, 2017 around 01:54

Doctor Spaceman
Jul 6, 2010

He who fights shitposters should see to it that he himself does not become a shitposter. And if you gaze for long into an anidavatar, the anidavatar gazes also into you.

The other dumb thing about Bill's speech is that it's hardly unique to Superman.

Jerusalem
May 20, 2004

Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way or another.


Seriously, watch the below scene and compare it to the Grant/Lucy scene where he's torn between revealing his secret identity or not - it's wonderful they wanted to pay homage to the original film but they did such a poor job of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIaF0QKtY0c

NieR Occomata
Jan 18, 2009


Wolfechu posted:

I'll say this about this thread, getting some amazing comic recommendations. Definitely checking out that FF Hickman run.

You need a reading list, let me find the post I made about it. It is my bar none favorite run of comics ever, and should be all up on MU.

It is also almost entirely self-contained, so all you need to know is at least the loose events of Civil War, the Skrull Invasion, and how that leads into Dark Reign.

Burger McAngus posted:

For my birthday a buddy of mine gifted me Hickman's run on Fantastic 4 and a year sub to Marvel Unlimited. I liked what I read so I was wondering if, as someone who's only marvel reading was that run, I could jump into Hickman's Avengers/Infinity/Secret Wars stuff or if I'd need a whole bunch of other things to know what's going on.

Toxxupation posted:

Okay, gently caress. I think I got the loving list down.

To enjoy Secret Wars fully, this is the reading order:

Dark Reign: Fantastic Four #1-5
Dark Reign: The Cabal
Fantastic Four: #570-588
FF: #1-11
Fantastic Four: #600-611 and FF #12-23 alternating every issue, so in other words starting with F4 600 before reading FF 12, then F4 601, then FF 13, and so on, only doubling together F4 605.1 and F4 605 as one. If it's read in the correct order you should start with F4 600 and end with FF 23.
This reading order for Hickman's run of Avengers, New Avengers, Infinity, and Secret Wars, except for from between Secret War #6 and Secret War #7, I read
Planet Hulk #1-5
Infinity Gauntlet #1-5
Old Man Logan #1-4
Thors: #1-4
E is for Extinction #1-4
Civil War: #1-5
Marvel 1872: #1-4
Siege: #1-4

After Secret War #9, I read
Old Man Logan #5

Then after, any Warzones that sound interesting or potentially cool.

Is there any other loving comic miniseries or oneshots I should be reading in addition to this.

Comics are loving dumb, guys.

Toxxupation posted:


I did this about a month ago. I can say post-trip report that of the minis I read (which were all ones that other people told me they liked) I really didn't like OML or E is for Extinction, and don't think either should be read (especially the latter, which is poorly written trash with terrible art). Civil War is a great mini (better than the event itself) but it's totally ignorable and basically doesn't function unless you've read the event, because it just sort of assumes you know what happened. 1872 is fine, but totally skippable. The only two minis I would argue that everybody HAS TO READ because they're plot-relevant are Thors and Siege (and the former is one of the best ideas ever executed perfectly), but Planet Hulk and IG are both super fun and some of the best minis in the event so is definitely worth reading.

Doctor Spaceman
Jul 6, 2010

He who fights shitposters should see to it that he himself does not become a shitposter. And if you gaze for long into an anidavatar, the anidavatar gazes also into you.

I ended up downloading a copy of Hickman's FF run after I bought because the reading order is so loving annoying. At least his Avengers run can generally be read a trade at a time.

2house2fly
Nov 14, 2012

You did a super job wrapping things up! And I'm not just saying that because I have to!

Lick! The! Whisk! posted:

It's clear that Moffat modelled this episode, and Grant specifically, after Superman. But he completely misunderstands why Superman works.
"modeled after" doesn't mean "copied exactly". I think a key to a lot of what this episode does is the fact that it isn't about a superhero, it's about a superhero fan.


Lick! The! Whisk! posted:

Grant is somehow both boring and kind of creepy. He has no reason to be a superhero, no inciting event that caused him to throw a costume on, so he feels completely out of place in "Mysterio", an hour in which he stars. Where Superman does what he does because he's genuinely nice, Grant, from "Mysterio"'s beginning to its end, feels like a Nice Guy. He engineers the entirety of his life to be around Lucy (Charity Wakefield), from being her live-in nanny to saving her constantly when he's in-costume, so the entirety of the episode comes across as watching some super-powered stalker try to trick a girl into a relationship with him. He's supposed to be a nebbish nerd, I...guess? But he just comes across as a complete and utter loser creepily pining after his employer.
The shy nerd adopts a persona of a charismatic and powerful hero because he wants to be seen as a powerful and charismatic hero. This isn't a noble motivation for a superhero, but as you correctly note here, Grant doesn't do anything for a noble reason. He's still trapped in his teens, an awkward nerd who doesn't even dare to ask out the woman of his dreams and instead works as her nanny, distancing himself from his feelings from her by referring to her formally(by her married name no less) and displacing his self-loathing and dissatisfaction by playing Superman at night, paralleled with the Doctor in this conversation:

quote:

DOCTOR: The Ghost. What have you got?
NARDOLE: The whole story.
DOCTOR: Fact me, baby. It's why I reassembled you.
NARDOLE: No, sir, that's not the reason, is it.
DOCTOR: Oh, just get on with it.
NARDOLE: You cut me out of Hydroflax because you were worried you'd be lonely. And we both know why, don't we. But, oh, look at you, avoiding the subject.
DOCTOR: I'm not avoiding anything, I'm just trying to save a planet.
NARDOLE: Which is what you always do when the conversation turns serious.
I also disagree with your reading of the episode as him "trying to trick a girl into a relationship"- it seems to me that the episode goes out of its way to portray him as not doing this, trying to think about his feelings for her as little as possible as Grant. When he talks with the Doctor about it he disregards the possibility of having a relationship with her outright, to the extent that he doesn't even disregard it because he clearly hadn't considered it. I think he only starts considering it when he realises she's attracted to the Ghost, which is also when he considers revealing the truth.


Lick! The! Whisk! posted:

It seems like the episode wants to put across that Grant is the real superhero, but if that's the case then why give him both such a traditionally feminine job and then make him so overdefensive about it? And why does "Mysterio" constantly use his job as a punchline? If the show wants us to root for him, why does everyone make fun of his job so frequently? Especially when you contrast that with how DW introduced and wrote Rory Williams (another character who worked in a female-dominated profession), it puts into sharper relief how nonsensical and at cross purposes such jokes are.
It's not that Grant is the real superhero, but that the qualities he demonstrates as the Ghost are more superficial and the ones he demonstrates as a nanny are more substantive and desirable in a partner. Well, from Lucy's perspective; let's say she sees him as loyal and reliable because he's hidden the sad nerd from her. It's worth noting that her comment about the glasses being his "superhero costume" is immediately preceded by him revealing that he couldn't let go of the baby monitor even while saving the world, ie demonstrating worth as a father figure (well, apart from leaving the baby alone in the apartment night after night... I'm not going to argue everything in the episode works...) And then by the end of the episode the sad nerd is gone, replaced by a more mature man who decides not to play superhero any more because "life isn't a comic book". I think the ending would have been stronger if Grant kept the glasses off, to be honest- he doesn't need them any more than Clark Kent does, and doesn't even need them for his secret identity since he wears a mask as The Ghost. The glasses mean that "nanny" is just another mask he wears, and when he reveals himself as The Ghost to Lucy the glasses come off. But then he puts them back on for the epilogue?

As for the "constant" and "frequent" instances of people making fun of Grant for being a nanny, I'm afraid you'd have to point them out to me.


Jerusalem posted:

There is actually a kind of vibe of Grant trying to take advantage of the situation to get into a relationship with her, when he escapes Brock's trap there was absolutely nothing stopping him taking out the thugs and Brock and saving Lucy.... except she had just told him how she liked Grant so he makes a point of escaping, changing back into Grant and then running up onto the roof so "Grant" can save the day this time.
This is an uncharitable reading of the scene, but to be honest I'm not sure what the charitable reading would be. Why didn't the Ghost casually fry the baddies with his heat vision and continue the date? Why did he fly away and then reappear as Grant? He tells them to point the gun at him rather than Lucy, clearly knowing that he's not at risk from a bullet, but why do that? If they shoot him then Lucy will know he's the Ghost, and if they don't then him being there is pointless. Maybe he was just stalling for time to try and find out what was going on (same reason I think the Doctor walked away from the guy being killed earlier; it would be nice to save him but then he'd risk the aliens concealing their plan or enacting it right away with no chance to stop it) but honestly I don't think even Moffat knew what Grant was thinking, and the whole point of changing them over was so that it would be Grant and not the Ghost who stopped the spaceship crashing.

Jerusalem
May 20, 2004

Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way or another.


2house2fly posted:

This is an uncharitable reading of the scene, but to be honest I'm not sure what the charitable reading would be. Why didn't the Ghost casually fry the baddies with his heat vision and continue the date? Why did he fly away and then reappear as Grant? He tells them to point the gun at him rather than Lucy, clearly knowing that he's not at risk from a bullet, but why do that? If they shoot him then Lucy will know he's the Ghost, and if they don't then him being there is pointless. Maybe he was just stalling for time to try and find out what was going on (same reason I think the Doctor walked away from the guy being killed earlier; it would be nice to save him but then he'd risk the aliens concealing their plan or enacting it right away with no chance to stop it) but honestly I don't think even Moffat knew what Grant was thinking, and the whole point of changing them over was so that it would be Grant and not the Ghost who stopped the spaceship crashing.

Probably the best way to have handled it would be for the Ghost to leave to change into Grant after learning that Lucy is impressed with him, Grant returns and THEN Harmony Shoal show up. That way Grant would be caught between wanting to save her and exposing his secret without the pretty hosed up step of abandoning her as the Ghost expressly to return as Grant to save the day. Then you could have him step up to the plate in the same way as before to stop the falling spaceship.

I think that's all systematic of the bigger issue of the only new Who that year mostly sidelining the Doctor in favor of two completely new characters, who also had the misfortune of not being particularly engaging/interesting.

Narsham
Jun 5, 2008


Doctor Spaceman posted:

Superman - Secret Identity is one of my favourite takes on the character. It's about a guy called Clark Kent who becomes Superman in a world where Superman exists but only in comics.

And to add my voice to the chorus, this story felt like Moffat hadn't seen any superhero stuff since he watched Donner's Superman as a kid.

"Is the Doctor a superhero" is always a fun thing to consider.

And it also feels like Moffat thinks superhero/comic fans are like Grant.

At least this episode creates the opportunity to troll a particular brand of Whovian by asking whether Mr. Huffle counts as a Companion.

Stabbatical
Sep 15, 2011



I also generally viewed the episode as being more about Grant leaving a state of arrested personal development with regards to his ability to relate, communicate, and understand other people. All the superhero stuff (the costume, the cocksure manner, the Christian Bale voice) is him trying to be a big manly superhero but not really getting any of the stuff about motivation that Toxx mentioned with regards to Superman & Spider-Man and overcompensating for it.

He also does fancy Lucy really hard but would never consider making a move - he's not trying to 'trick' her into a relationship. It's the opposite. He's trying to avoid moving in either direction, either moving on with his life and from her or actually acknowledging and expressing his feelings thereby running the risk of rejection. He's a classic nervous teenage boy. He is a kind of Nice Guy and a general wet blanket but he's also too nice (or read enough Superman comics, on which his worldview seems to be based) to be tricking her. He's just become some kind of servant for Lucy. If, prior to the climax, Lucy said to him "I like you, let's try things and see what happens" then he would have just run away and not confronted it. The irony is that despite all his power, he has no agency in his own life. He's in a rut. His arc is that he just grows up a bit and gains the power to express his wants and needs more clearly.

Maybe that theme would've worked better if the episode focused on Grant as a teen or a younger man. He and Lucy must be in their early to mid 30s or so when the story airs? He seems a bit old to only be learning that kind of life lesson then. Maybe the idea was that being The Ghost took up enough time that he never had a chance to develop himself but then was his life of actual superheroics that easy for him that he was never forced to grow up? Had nothing else happened in his life? Did he never just read a book or something?

(At least, this is how I remembered it all - I've not rewatched this because it's not really worth it.)

cargohills
Apr 17, 2014



Narsham posted:

And it also feels like Moffat thinks superhero/comic fans are like Grant.

I don't really think that's the case. He's a giant nerd himself, I'd imagine he understands that comics nerds aren't very different.

Timby
Dec 23, 2006

Tell him about the Twinkie.

Escobarbarian posted:

From a "criticising the review" standpoint I gotta say there's far too much discussion of Grant and superheroes in general and too little about the actual episode. Which I guess presents a point, while obviously the recaps are long gone, should the review still generally make sense to someone who hasn't seen the episode? I dunno what the answer is (obviously this thread is mainly for fans of the show, which is an argument against it) but I know as someone who hasn't seen the episode all this review tells me about it is "there's a guy called Grant who is a superhero and also parts of the episode revolve around the Doctor". Is there a villain? Were they good or bad? What was the Doctor doing in his half? Was it good or bad? Who is this guy Capaldi apparently leaves to die? etc

You'll get used to the tangents. I forget the episode (latter-era Davies, I'm pretty sure), but I remember once he spent the first like 1,500 words of a 3,000-word review going on and on and on and on about the television writing and production process and how it works, explaining it to us like it was TV 101 ... except he was talking about a process that was literally not at all the way Doctor Who (or most other British TV) works.

And More
Jun 19, 2013

How far, Doctor?
How long have you lived?


Timby posted:

You'll get used to the tangents.

Just a little reminder that you're talking to Bown. Y'know, the guy who got "banned" from the initial thread.

Timby
Dec 23, 2006

Tell him about the Twinkie.

And More posted:

Just a little reminder that you're talking to Bown. Y'know, the guy who got "banned" from the initial thread.







how did i not know about the nameswitch

NieR Occomata
Jan 18, 2009


I forgot to mention in the review, but My Hero Academia actually pulls off the "Superman who is also Spider-Man" thing really well.

Basically, what I'm saying is watch My Hero Academia.

Escobarbarian
Jun 18, 2004

"Why is it blue?"
"It's always blue."




Timby posted:

I remember once he spent the first like 1,500 words of a 3,000-word review going on and on and on and on about the television writing and production process and how it works, explaining it to us like it was TV 101 ... except he was talking about a process that was literally not at all the way Doctor Who (or most other British TV) works.

hahah i remember this, the best

adhuin
Sep 15, 2008

Sobriety blows

And More posted:

Just a little reminder that you're talking to Bown. Y'know, the guy who got "banned" from the initial thread.

He can be right too.

If the tangent about SH-comics was bit shorter AND mixed more with stuff about the episode I would have been hooked.
Currently reading the piece I constantly thinking: Yeah, but what about the Christmas Special?".


I agree that it wasn't very good episode. I just didn't see it as aggressively bad, Just mediocre take on old-school superheroics.

adhuin fucked around with this message at Jul 10, 2017 around 07:52

Escobarbarian
Jun 18, 2004

"Why is it blue?"
"It's always blue."




tbf I got pretty vindicated after Oxx called everyone horrible spergs and burned out

NieR Occomata
Jan 18, 2009


End this tangent now, please.

Escobarbarian
Jun 18, 2004

"Why is it blue?"
"It's always blue."




Why would you need to carry it on? Full story got told already.

AndwhatIseeisme
Mar 30, 2010

Being alive is pretty much a constant stream of embarrassment.


Fun Shoe

So Occ, not to change the subject or anything, but I'm curious about something. You mentioned that you're aware that this season is Moffat and Capaldi's last. So, in light of that knowledge, before you go into the meat of this season, what is your opinion of this change? Excited for the change? Sorry to see them go? Completely indifferent about who's sailing this lovely ship? Let us know. I'm curious if your opinion will change or not after the season is over.

idonotlikepeas
May 29, 2010

This reasoning is possible for forums user idonotlikepeas!


Also, and unrelated to the above: people who sent me just the first vote, remember to send me a second vote soon! We're expecting a review this Saturday, and it'll sneak up on you faster than you think. I'd advise getting it taken care of early in the week.

NieR Occomata
Jan 18, 2009


AndwhatIseeisme posted:

So Occ, not to change the subject or anything, but I'm curious about something. You mentioned that you're aware that this season is Moffat and Capaldi's last. So, in light of that knowledge, before you go into the meat of this season, what is your opinion of this change? Excited for the change? Sorry to see them go? Completely indifferent about who's sailing this lovely ship? Let us know. I'm curious if your opinion will change or not after the season is over.

Oh I forgot to respond to this.

Well, firstly, having shotgunned the entirety of the RTD tenure before watching the Moffat stuff I have to say from an empirical standpoint there's very, very few times where Moffat's episodes sink to the depths that RTD regularly sank to. And from a "Genuinely offensive to the audience's intelligence" standpoint nothing is worse than "The Parting of the Ways", although "The Zygon Inversion" almost gets there by virtue of how just straight-up normally offensive it is. So I always found the Moffat hatred really overblown and frankly, really disingenuous - I saw the RTD stuff, it was regularly really loving bad. Moffat's stuff being sorta repetitive and having some vaguely sexist poo poo in it is not unique to him at all, and I found the bandwagon hatred of Moffat almost always argued in bad faith. The subsequent mean-spirited joy people had that he was leaving always came across as a really lovely thing to think and really ignored the positives Moffat brought to the series. Like, if you honestly argue that Series Five is anything but one of if not the best seasons of Doctor Who, ever, I would say you are either arguing in fundamentally bad faith or aren't actually a fan.

Like I cannot envision hating Moffat so much you can't actually acknowledge that Series Five, "The Doctor's Wife", "Listen", "Heaven Sent", "Time of the Doctor"...I could go on, those were literally off the top of my head...aren't among the best stuff this show has produced.

So yeah, I'm sad to see him go, but I can fully agree that it seems like it's Moffat's time to leave. Series Nine was mostly abysmal and 1000 was really really bad, so I can see the argument that Moffat's run out of ideas. Like hoo boy, was Series Nine a loving mess.

I think I mentioned in the Series Eight finale review that change is fundamental to DW - that it's a fundamental part of what makes this show appealing, that it constantly surprises. I thought (and still think) that this is a mostly-bad (or, more accurately, mostly not good) show that has flashes of true greatness. The change is essential to keeping the show fresh, the uncertainty, so on some level I'm excited to see what the next showrunner brings to the table. And from a selfish perspective it's nice to get another showrunner so I can have reviews dealing with the new showrunner's style over having to bring up Moffat v. RTD a billion more times.

That all being said.

Chibnall is (mostly) a loving terrible writer on DW and a mostly terrible television writer in general. It's really, really hard - near-impossible, in fact - to be excited that Chibnall's taking the reins when he wrote that loving godawful Silurians two-parter and outside of Broadchurch season one, which itself fell into an awkward repetition within its first season of repeating themes and ideas over and over, everything he's written has been varying shades of bad. As a writer he's mostly bad, as a showrunner he had one good season of a show before the bottom completely fell out - I just don't know. I have zero confidence he can deliver.

Escobarbarian
Jun 18, 2004

"Why is it blue?"
"It's always blue."




I do NOT want to drag all this up fully but for me it's almost entirely a tonal thing. I'd rather watch a show that more resembled a sorta crappy British kids show but still fundamentally understood it's character than one that looks/feels more like modern sci-fi but has the Doctor getting turned on by his girlfriend murdering aliens.

I could probably write a whole essay about that one line (it's in 602 if anyone can't remember) and how I consider it entirely representative of Moff and his flippant, sorta lovely attitude/willingness to ignore pretty much the central tenet of the Doctor's character (violence and murder are wrong) in order to (in this case) make a quip about how River makes him horny. But obviously I'm not gonna do that

Anyway the point of this post is to say that calling Moff hate disingenuous isn't really fair because not everyone watches TV the same way as you or for the same reasons

Big Mean Jerk
Jan 27, 2009

MENTALLY
DEFEATED


Grimey Drawer

My Moffat hatred stems more from his complete and utter failure as a showrunner. He's literally wasted years of the show because he can't budget properly and we're now on the second (!) actor to leave the title role because they don't want to commit any more of their time to a delayed production.

Yeah, the Moffat years look professional and polished, but it's still a loving mess behind the scenes.

TinTower
Apr 21, 2010

You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.


Don't forget the time he had a domestic at a party with Caroline Skinner and ended up shouting that she was "erased from Doctor Who"

And More
Jun 19, 2013

How far, Doctor?
How long have you lived?


Big Mean Jerk posted:

we're now on the second (!) actor to leave the title role because they don't want to commit any more of their time to a delayed production.

Capaldi was forced out by the BBC. Not sexy enough.

2house2fly
Nov 14, 2012

You did a super job wrapping things up! And I'm not just saying that because I have to!

That rumour about Capaldi being forced out comes from a goon who works at another production near the Doctor Who studio and has accurately predicted some stuff about the current series finale, and that will clearly be in the upcoming Christmas episode, well in advance, so he's at least got some real second- or third-hand insider knowledge. Plus that guy absolutely hates Steven Moffat so if he says Capaldi leaving isn't Moffat's fault, he must really believe it.

Anyway, as a producer Chibnall has delivered TV episodes consistently on schedule, as far as I can tell. And it's rumoured he'll be taking a US-style "writer's room" approach where the plots of episodes and seasons are hashed out collaboratively (or, if you're feeling unkind, by committee) and you barely ever see any episodes where the show runner has a writing credit, so his ineptitude as a writer may be a non-issue.

In retrospect, Moffat clearly either intended to leave after series 9 or was expecting to. Bringing back Gallifrey and making the Doctor the villain is something you save for your big finale, and the ending was a perfect blank slate for a new writer. I like Moffat but he's had a good run on the show and I wouldn't have minded if he'd left, although I think I prefer a new show runner and new lead actor coming on together

cargohills
Apr 17, 2014




I really don't get the hype around Series 5. Politically, The Beast Below and Victory of the Daleks aren't really much better than Invasion/Inversion, and aside from that are both pretty unbearable to me anyway - and then there's two whole episodes dedicated to a story that was better when it was written by a communist and starred Jon Pertwee. There's a decent amount of average-to-good episodes, and some classics (Amy's Choice in particular is a standout) but not really any more than anything before.

shadok
Dec 12, 2004

You tried to destroy it once before, Commodore.
The result was a wrecked ship and a dead crew.

Fun Shoe

Sorry, I'm on the Series 5 train, especially coming as it did after the noisy mess that was the last Tennant specials.

2house2fly
Nov 14, 2012

You did a super job wrapping things up! And I'm not just saying that because I have to!

Series 5 has 6 high-end Moffat episodes, Amy's Choice and The Lodger, which is just about a higher bar than any other series. I'd actually probably be more likely to watch series 8 through again though, where Forest is the only one I really couldn't stand watching again

AndwhatIseeisme
Mar 30, 2010

Being alive is pretty much a constant stream of embarrassment.


Fun Shoe

cargohills posted:

Politically, The Beast Below and Victory of the Daleks aren't really much better than Invasion/Inversion
I would be legitimately fascinated to hear about this opinion.

2house2fly
Nov 14, 2012

You did a super job wrapping things up! And I'm not just saying that because I have to!

I have seen people say they saw the moral of The Beast Below as "if you're nice to your slaves they'll be happy being slaves" which seems a bit of a stretch to me but it's out there. As for Victory of The Daleks, it features Winston Churchill ("I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia") as the Doctor's chubby chummy.

Escobarbarian
Jun 18, 2004

"Why is it blue?"
"It's always blue."




I can't remember Beast Below but Victory has the Doctor being best mates with Churchill the bloody British hero which is a trillion kinds of urghhhhhhhhhh

e: ^^^ Don't forget calling Indians "a beastly people with a beastly religion"

2house2fly
Nov 14, 2012

You did a super job wrapping things up! And I'm not just saying that because I have to!

Mark Gatiss said he didn't want to tackle the darker side of Churchill because he didn't feel it was appropriate for a kids TV show. and he's correct but really what they should have done in that case was to not have Churchill in it

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

cargohills
Apr 17, 2014



AndwhatIseeisme posted:

I would be legitimately fascinated to hear about this opinion.

These pieces, by Jack Graham, pretty much explain why I find them both so awful:

The Beast Below: http://shabogangraffiti.blogspot.co...ngland.html?m=1
Victory of the Daleks: http://shabogangraffiti.blogspot.co...astard.html?m=1

  • Locked thread
«10 »