| |
Doctor Woo |
| |
This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list. |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #103235, posted by VincceH at 16:44, 1/7/2007, in reply to message #103232 |
 Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
(The RestaurantMaster at the end of the Universe)
Yes  How did he get there was that explained? The Time Lords resurrected him, because they thought he might be an asset in the Time War. Probably because of him being a genius.
The problem is that he's quite specifically an evil genius, so he did what any sensible evil genius would do in that situation - he ran away and hid (at the end of the universe).
He used the same technique to become human that the Doctor used a few episodes ago, so that he couldn't be found. |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #103236, posted by Phlamethrower at 16:50, 1/7/2007, in reply to message #103232 |
 Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
That's clearer thanks 
I read somewhere that the Master was the professor on Utopia? Yes - did you miss the big reveal at the end of that epsiode, or something?
Yes How did he get there was that explained?
The Master had made himself human, the same way the Doctor did in a previous episode (by storing his timelord essence in a watch). Martha noticed the watch, and caused Yana to become interested in it; then while she was off telling the Doctor about the watch, Yana opened it and transformed back into the Master. Then he got shot by his insect assistant, forcing him to regenerate into John Simm. And since he was in the room with the TARDIS, he managed to steal that.
I don't think they explained fully how he came to be human, or at the end of the universe - but I think he may have said in another episode that he ran there to escape the time war. [edit - Yes, see Vincceh's explanation above ]
That link appears to be broken in Netsurf/Fresco. Works for me! (Netsurf 1.0)
I mean, try selecting season 2 in the menu and you get an error.Ah, I see. You could use Wikipedia instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials#Series_2_.282006.29
[Edited by Phlamethrower at 17:56, 1/7/2007] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Tony Haines |
Message #103238, posted by Loris at 19:26, 1/7/2007, in reply to message #103221 |
 Ha ha, me mine, mwahahahaha
Posts: 1025
|
This episode makes me want to punch RTD in the face. And then press a big button marked "RESET", and punch him some more. And then press the button again, and continue to hit him, but this time with golf clubs and other assorted instruments. What exactly was it that drew your ire?
I mean, I mostly felt ... meh. but it wasn't awful.
I sometimes watch dr who confidential afterwards, and often they're really crowing about how they've put these clues and back-references throughout the series. But the saxon thing was an obvious teaser, and the Toclafane thing was a paltry two episodes back.
How come the doc could fix his tardis but the master couldn't? Is the master's tardis stuck at the end of the universe?
...
Thing is, I really liked the cute blue insect woman from a couple of episodes back. I wish they hadn't killed her off. And the tree woman from the end of the earth 1.0 episode. Its getting to be a bit of a cliche now - bring on a single token member of some potentially interesting alien species, then kill it off at the end of the episode, so they don't have to think too hard. Then recycle all the old villans, in order, again. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #103239, posted by Phlamethrower at 21:23, 1/7/2007, in reply to message #103238 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
This episode makes me want to punch RTD in the face. And then press a big button marked "RESET", and punch him some more. And then press the button again, and continue to hit him, but this time with golf clubs and other assorted instruments. What exactly was it that drew your ire?
The consistent use of reset buttons to undo world changing events. It just seems like a cheap way of abusing the viewer's relationships with the characters, especially when it's spread out over multiple episodes.
When they spread it out over multiple episodes, to build up to something big, it should stay big, not magically go away 5 minutes before the end of the episode. Or at least, make it clear at the start what the reset clause will be, and have them work towards it during the episode - not just keep piling on the pressure until 5 minutes until the end when everything magically gets turned back to normal.
"Oh no, my favourite character is in peril! Lots of other important people have died! How are they going to get out of this one? Will they ever be the same again?" (reset button gets pressed) "Oh, how smashing! Everything's back to normal! Good job we don't have to worry about CONSEQUENCES or anything, in this magical world that we live in! Now who wants tea and biscuits?"
How come the doc could fix his tardis but the master couldn't? Because it's a massive plot hole! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #103242, posted by rich at 22:44, 1/7/2007, in reply to message #103239 |
 Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
It didn't reset - the President is still dead  They do tend to over-use that kind of thing on the season endings, but at least the whacking great alien spaceships that keep appearing aren't being explained away as hallucinations or somesuch bollocks - they're now "fact" in the Who-niverse, because Mr. Saxon said so before they went up to the big Captain Scarlet ship (lots of stealage going on - notice also the Return of the Jedi funeral scene, and the Flash Gordon "The End...?" ring sequence? Blatant!).
I disagree that the Tardis is a plot hole though - it's obviously cobbled together from bits of old rubbish that the Doctor finds lying around, so no wonder no-one else can fix it. I'm surprised anyone else can fly it either.
________
 Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Tony Haines |
Message #103247, posted by Loris at 11:53, 2/7/2007, in reply to message #103239 |
Ha ha, me mine, mwahahahaha
Posts: 1025
|
The consistent use of reset buttons to undo world changing events. It just seems like a cheap way of abusing the viewer's relationships with the characters, especially when it's spread out over multiple episodes. I generally agree, but that sort of thing kind of comes with the territory when you've got generalised time travel. It ought to, anyway - so they had to have a reason why you couldn't change things "once you've become part of events", for general plot purposes. So the paradox machine is sort of an exception to an exception.
I hate that, but can kind of live with it here because it doesn't take itself too seriously.
If they're not careful though, it'll descend to the depths of star trek.
Now who wants tea and biscuits?"
MMm, yes please. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Tony Haines |
Message #103248, posted by Loris at 12:03, 2/7/2007, in reply to message #103242 |
Ha ha, me mine, mwahahahaha
Posts: 1025
|
... and the Flash Gordon "The End...?" ring sequence? I think the master always does that. Its tradition or something.
Did you mean the flying aircraft carrier re Captain Scarlet? Or those rockets which never got airbourne? I hadn't realised it, but you're right, they were all very Gerry Anderson.
I disagree that the Tardis is a plot hole though - it's obviously cobbled together from bits of old rubbish that the Doctor finds lying around, so no wonder no-one else can fix it. I'm surprised anyone else can fly it either. But the master has his own, or did have. Even though he forgot where he parked it. He's a time lord, and an evil genius. He builds rockets out of food (actually, Skoda do that too). If Dr. can fix it, he should be able to. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #103250, posted by filecore at 12:37, 2/7/2007, in reply to message #103248 |
Posts: 3868
|
If Dr. can fix it, he should be able to. Or maybe he'll just ask Jim. After all, Jim'll Fix It... for you... and you, and you, and... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #103265, posted by andrew at 19:13, 2/7/2007, in reply to message #103235 |
 Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
(The RestaurantMaster at the end of the Universe)
Yes How did he get there was that explained? The Time Lords resurrected him, because they thought he might be an asset in the Time War. Probably because of him being a genius.
The problem is that he's quite specifically an evil genius, so he did what any sensible evil genius would do in that situation - he ran away and hid (at the end of the universe).
He used the same technique to become human that the Doctor used a few episodes ago, so that he couldn't be found. I agree with Phlamethrower, there are too many holes in the plot. This applies to the MAster and the Daleks as far as I can tell:
Master - apparently destroyed on the degenerating cheetah world in the "last ever" episode Survival. Next, he apears in the '96 movie and apparently he's been executed by the Daleks. This despite the fact that 7th Doctor had destroyed all Daleks except for Davros in "Remembrance..." Then the 8th Doctor destroys the Master. Then the TimeLords resurrect him as you say against the non-existent yet existent Daleks.
Daleks - Doctor destroys them, then the 9th Doctor finds one and (here I get hazy because I missed a lot of episodes and haven't done the research) it escapes.
Then, a Dalek ship from the Time war (that shouudn't have happened given the 7th Doctor's actions) turns up to Earth having absorbed humans over the centuries..
Then...I missed the end of series 2 episodes.
So in conclusion, how the heck can the Master have been put on trial by the Daleks? The only possible option short of very poor cop-out plot devices is thus:
1. Davros recreates the Daleks
2. These are the Daleks that put the Master on trial and send his remains to the 7th Doctor (or however they got to him).
3. The same Daleks - including Davros unless he died - are then destroyed in the Time Wars except for a single, lone ship (and the one collected by that recluse in "Dalek" - can't remember how he got it?) which multiplies and attacks earth in the 9th Doctor era.
[Edited by andrew at 20:17, 2/7/2007]
[Edited by andrew at 20:18, 2/7/2007] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #103296, posted by rich at 20:09, 3/7/2007, in reply to message #103265 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
I think you're putting too much store on the old stuff - although the new series pays lipservice to what's gone on before, it isn't a slave to the continuity of Old Who.
And I think you should do that research, because in Dalek (series one, New Who) the Dalek doesn't escape, it commits suicide rather than become human (or at least, it gets Rose to order it to destroy itself). This ties in to the later episodes where it turns out it wasn't the only Dalek to escape, and the new Dalek army is made from humans too, making them (even more) insane.
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #103297, posted by andrew at 22:07, 3/7/2007, in reply to message #103296 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
First, sorry if that sounded like a rant but if it doesn't respect the classic series with continuity then it's a turn-off personally speaking.
As for the second part, finally I'm hoping to get a STB soon so I can watch repeats etc on BBC 3 |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #103302, posted by rich at 10:12, 4/7/2007, in reply to message #103297 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
First, sorry if that sounded like a rant but if it doesn't respect the classic series with continuity then it's a turn-off personally speaking. As you've already pointed out, the old series had already painted itself into several corners, and even disregarded its own continuity (e.g. Genesis of the Daleks). Why should the new series cripple itself, instead of just saying "let's bring back the Daleks?"
It sounds like you're just being contrary by saying that some arbitrary point makes it a turn off, as you don't seem to have turned on yet anyway. Try watching whole episodes and see if slavish continuity with the old series actually matters.
New Who isn't perfect - I'm not a big fan of Russel T's writing personally, especially when he brings the gay (e.g. disco pop) or kiddy (e.g. farting aliens with big eyes) elements - but episodes written by the likes of Steven Moffat or Paul Cornell rank amongst Best Who Ever.
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #103303, posted by andypoole at 10:13, 4/7/2007, in reply to message #103297 |
Posts: 5558
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/07/04/46831.shtml
Oh dear. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #103305, posted by rich at 10:15, 4/7/2007, in reply to message #103303 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/07/04/46831.shtml
Oh dear. Yes, I saw that in the paper this morning. And Kylie in the Christmas Special. I think Mr. Davies should have handed over the reigns this season, instead of waiting another year
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #103308, posted by flibble at 15:35, 4/7/2007, in reply to message #103305 |
Posts: 892
|
I think I would have been more pleased if RTD had had nothing to do with the series in the first place</rant> |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #103309, posted by rich at 17:46, 4/7/2007, in reply to message #103308 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
I think I would have been more pleased if RTD had had nothing to do with the series in the first place</rant> That would basically mean there wasn't a series. The only reason he said he'd work for the BBC was if they'd allow him to bring back Doctor Who. I can put up with the odd farting alien if it means we get the likes of "Blink", the 1913 double-parter and so on. And I actually liked John Simm hamming it up as the Master, even if the story slipped a bit in places.
Sally Sparrow should have been the new assistant though. I mean, come on. What's not to like there?
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #103310, posted by andrew at 19:27, 4/7/2007, in reply to message #103302 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
First, sorry if that sounded like a rant but if it doesn't respect the classic series with continuity then it's a turn-off personally speaking. As you've already pointed out, the old series had already painted itself into several corners, and even disregarded its own continuity (e.g. Genesis of the Daleks). Why should the new series cripple itself, instead of just saying "let's bring back the Daleks?"
It sounds like you're just being contrary by saying that some arbitrary point makes it a turn off, as you don't seem to have turned on yet anyway. Try watching whole episodes and see if slavish continuity with the old series actually matters.
It's hardly abritrary - the old series is fondly remembered particularly McCoy and the Pertwee episodes and especially the Dalek and Master episodes. I can never forget the 7th Dr/Ace interaction and the urgency of it all and how the 3rd Dr greeted the Master as his friend originally. It's also a matter of principle just as importantly - we waited year upon year for the series to come back and many people (not myself) never gave up hope so the last thing that's called for is for the classic series to be considered an inconvenience. As far as I'm concerned all that is fair is for a decent explanation to be given e.g. the order of Daleks above the emperor that I read were in the series 2 finale. That would suffice as an explanation as to why they came back not just disregarding a whole McCoy story as if he didn't appear in the movie as well.
The fact I wasn't sure how it all fitted together as in other TV very often stops me watching - I don't want to suspend reality and just "consume" it (although admittedly I could do some more internet reading around it )
New Who isn't perfect - I'm not a big fan of Russel T's writing personally, especially when he brings the gay (e.g. disco pop) or kiddy (e.g. farting aliens with big eyes) elements - but episodes written by the likes of Steven Moffat or Paul Cornell rank amongst Best Who Ever.
Well what put me off was yes that farting episode but more than that Ecclestone leaving after 1 series and the weakest link/big brother episode at the end of series 1.
Don't forget there was a fair bit of silliness in some of McCoy's episodes although some were pretty serious and excellent IMHO.
I enjoyed Gridlock and Blink especially in the latest series.
[Edited by andrew at 20:30, 4/7/2007] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #103374, posted by andrew at 23:57, 6/7/2007, in reply to message #103310 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
What did you mean about Genesis of the Daleks, by the way? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #103485, posted by filecore at 08:57, 13/7/2007, in reply to message #103374 |
Posts: 3868
|
For all you freaky Dr Who geeks: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/12/kylie_titanic/ |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #110199, posted by monkeyson2 at 22:56, 7/6/2009, in reply to message #103485 |
 Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/6419
Goddammit! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #110201, posted by VincceH at 08:22, 8/6/2009, in reply to message #110199 |
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/6419
Goddammit! It's pure speculation on their part that the end of the first half of the split season will be a cliffhanger - what we might see is just two short seasons in one year, with the usual self contained (and resolved) stories in most of them, with a simple season arc running through the whole.
What would be nice is, rather than a Doctor-and-companion-in-peril cliffhanger, we get an arc related cliffhanger, in the form of a WTF?? moment - think back to the first time we saw a Shadow vessel in Babylon 5 (Jason knows what I mean, even if nobody else does) but as the very last thing we see at the very end of the first half-season.
I'd like that.
I'd like that a lot. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Bryan Hogan |
Message #110202, posted by helpful at 11:27, 8/6/2009, in reply to message #110201 |
Member
Posts: 255
|
what we might see is just two short seasons in one year But seasons are 3 months long and there are four of them in a year.
Oh, you mean a *series*
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Paul Stewart |
Message #110203, posted by sa110_mk at 13:57, 8/6/2009, in reply to message #110201 |
Member
Posts: 144
|
the first time we saw a Shadow vessel in Babylon 5 Bloody scarey they was!
Still sends a shiver up my spine everytime I see those vessels.
Far too spiderish for my liking. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #110205, posted by VincceH at 14:22, 8/6/2009, in reply to message #110202 |
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
what we might see is just two short seasons in one year But seasons are 3 months long and there are four of them in a year.
Oh, you mean a *series*
No, I mean a season. I use the word as a personal preference to the silly duplication of the word series to mean both the whole series as well as, within that whole series, the smaller series'. Oops. See what I mean.
To use 'series' for the whole thing, and 'season' for the particular run of episodes makes much more sense. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Flegg |
Message #110224, posted by Jaffa at 23:56, 10/6/2009, in reply to message #110199 |
Member
Posts: 53
|
It's quite amusing seeing the thread pop up and worries over Kylie or Catherine Tate; when they're both generally accepted as being really quite fabulous in retrospect
Anyway, here's hoping that Karen Gillan'll be playing a teenager-type character (like Ace, but looking 16) whereas Matt Smith's will be more paternal.
Not sure I could cope with a 26 year-old Doctor and a 21 year-old companion flirting in the TARDIS; no matter how much the Rose thing worked for #10, |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #110225, posted by filecore at 07:10, 11/6/2009, in reply to message #110205 |
Posts: 3868
|
Oh, you mean a *series* No, I mean a season. I use the word as a personal preference to the silly duplication of the word series to mean both the whole series as well as, within that whole series, the smaller series'. Oops. See what I mean.
To use 'series' for the whole thing, and 'season' for the particular run of episodes makes much more sense.
I'm with VinceH on this one. Even the dictionary definitions are behing it: series (a serialised set of programs - evem electronics lingo agrees, it's where something flows through first element and then the next and so on, in series); seasons (a recurrent period of time when something particular happens).
So you see, a series quite clearly contains seasons (just as a year - a series of days - contains seasons, particular segments defined by certain patterns) but it doesn't work nearly so well to use them the other way round. Also, as Vince points out above, it's just silly to try and use series for both parts. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
| Pages (4): |< <
4
|
