|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 26, 2019 18:11:47 GMT
If you are a Doctor Who fan, even someone who has only seen the series since 2005, avoid this season.
I tried, I really did try to watch this through and gave up before I could manage to finish the first episode. Of course I had just been watching a lot of Doctor Who over the last week or two starting with Episodes with John Pertwee. But mother of god this was bad.
I have defended Jodie Whittaker's casting as the Doctor, based on her bringing at least as much if not more actual experience to the show as her predecessors did. Plus having had her own mini-series prior to being cast. While I maintain she was a logical choice, my god her performance here is dire.
She brings zero charm or charisma to the role, managing to somehow deliver each and every line with the exact same tone of voice you normally see in a school play that was put on at the last minute. Except for Bradley Walsh you can say the exact same thing about everyone else in the episode. Every single Doctor before her managed to bring some charm and charisma to the role right from the start, even if they were not a Doctor you liked. Whittaker fails to do this in the entire episode.
The episode itself looks superb, and is certainly shot well. But it moves at the speed of a dead snail and is utterly devoid of any fun or charm what-so-ever. What passes for humour is steamrolled into the ground due to the aforementioned same-tone delivery. What passes for tension doesn't exist and my interest in all of these people is only equaled by my interest in cleaning out a septic tank with my bare hands.
This is bad, seriously bad. I was willing to keep an open mind and think that this was a case of people just not liking change or reading too much into aspects of the season regarding 'diversity'. But this IS bad and it isn't Doctor Who. There is no charm, no wonder and above all no fun to be found here.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 26, 2019 18:44:46 GMT
If you are a Doctor Who fan, even someone who has only seen the series since 2005, avoid this season... Sounds like something to put on my must avoid list, right next to Discovery.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 26, 2019 19:02:34 GMT
I'd say yes.
I pointed out in other places (not automatically on here) that the ratings for the season imply people tuning into the series to see what it was going to be about, and giving Jodie a chance, but just getting bored and stopping watching. I can see why, and no matter what the narrative some want to sprout about 'sexist/toxic fans'. Ultimately its just dull and lacks any kind of fun or charisma.
You will see people defending the season, which is fine if that is because they actually like it. Less fine when they try to use questionable logic or, in one case, said anyone who objected was not a Who fan and could 'F' off. The same person tried to 'prove' that the ratings were fine, just fine. Most successful season ever based on the 30 day ratings! Look see, compare it to Capabldi's run and you'll see the figures are better (Than the last two seasons, which no one was saying they were not). See it even got higher ratings that Eccleston's first episode using the ratings...that count some viewers twice and after I just specifically noted that I COULDN'T compare the 30 day figures to the pre-Capaldi seasons because they didn't exist.
The only possible ray of light was a recent article about season 12 starting filming. In this it has a line that most people seem to have missed; "...He {Chris Chibnal} will still have a role to play this season..." This is interesting because, well, his role on the series should be rather clear; He should be the showrunner and head writer.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 27, 2019 0:45:20 GMT
From what I understand, this is yet another instance in which reviews from "professional" critics and reviews from average viewers are polar opposites. While the so-called "professional" critics have hailed the season for being all "stunning and brave" and whatnot, on some review sites the positive score from fans is as low as 29%.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 27, 2019 13:36:44 GMT
The Rotten Tomatoes score is 97% for critics, 21% from viewers as of writing.
The Amazon scores are some two and a half stars, the iTunes score much the same.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 27, 2019 13:48:46 GMT
What does the average viewer know? They shouldn’t even be allowed to watch these shows.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 27, 2019 15:59:12 GMT
So I tried to force myself to watch the special to see if things had improved.
Jodie Whittaker is somewhat better, although each and every line seems to be delivered in the same tone and volume regardless of the situation. Threatening a Dalek, working out the excuse for the script, delivering news that a loved one is probably dead...same volume, pacing and tone.
The writing however still lacks any sense of wonder or, that oft used comment, fun. Worse is that it frequently heads in a direction that you hope will give a very 'Who' moment for the Doctor...and then flushes that chance down the drain.
Remember how the 11th Doctor faced off against a large fleet of ships and sent then running with 'Hello, I'm the Doctor. Basically, Run'? Or how he would frequently step forward with 'This world (Earth) is under MY protection' {Also said by the 10th and 12th Doctors}. This time we get, and I kid you not, '...I'll always be here with my mates...' This is followed by the Doctor turning to her companions, oh, sorry 'mates' because 0.0001% of the population might find 'companion' offensive. And ASKING THEM if she can actually pull of her plan. This is a damp fart of a moment, with which they follow through with the excrement of an 'action' scene with has all the tension of a 150 year old rubber band and all the intensity of a sleeping gerbil. All of this being delivered, including the actual threat, at the same volume and tone.
This is not a 2000+ year old alien who's name could cause an army to run. This is a cardboard cutout that would make said army laugh hysterically before using for target practice.
And this is just the end of the episode. The rest is utterly forgettable and most of it seems to have been lifted out of a serious slow paced drama series like Broadchurch.
It's fairly clear at this point that no one behind the camera knows or cares anything about this series. Whittaker herself is, at this point, coming over to me as someone who was badly miscast in a role she simply doesn't have the range to play. At best season 12 will involve the BBC having taken the writing duties away from Chibnall and getting people in who do actually know what they are writing for. But at the moment I'm not convinced Whittakers performance is going to improve even then.
When people were saying Doctor Who was dead, or suggesting that a great idea would be to bring back Capaldi and have the entirety of Whittaker's run be a regeneration induced nightmare before he actually regenerated. Well I thought they were over reacting. Now I see their point.
Prediction/thoughts; I think the BBC knows it has a serious problem on its hands and is looking for a new showrunner and new Doctor. This would explain the long hiatus between season 11 and 12. Assuming, not unreasonably, that her contract is the same as her predecessors. Then that would mean that she would be under contract for 3 years or so. By shoving season 12 back a year that would allow the BBC to restrict Whittakers run to only two seasons, as her contract would likely run out before they could make a third season. This would give the BBC over a year to decide what to do with the show, and look for replacements for both Whittaker and Chibnall (who's contract is likely also for three years).
If they can find replacements expect them to film Jodies last episode later this year. If not don't be too surprised if the BBC puts the series back on hiatus for a few years; something I'd argue they should probably have done after Capaldi's run was at an end and it was clear they were having problems finding a showrunner and actor.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 27, 2019 16:09:39 GMT
I've only seen part of an episode, and I'm not completely sure which number it was.
I found it acceptable. I do plan on watching it once it makes it to netflix, as competing for DVR time is only reserved for the most important shows. on a personal level, I found the new reincarnation to be more likeable than the grumpy scotsman - though that is purely a personal assessment of the CHARACTER, and not the acting. and I haven't seen enough to see the overall character of the new doctor, as I came in, in the middle and haven't seen the doctor NOT in world saving mode.
actually, when I think about it, waiting for it to hit netflix is a risk that has bitten be in the butt, before (Castle, for one) but hopefully the BBC won't be so petty as to deny an audience for competitive reasons.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 27, 2019 16:14:10 GMT
What does the average viewer know? They shouldn’t even be allowed to watch these shows. It wouldn't surprise me if some exec somewhere was thinking this for real. It seems like more and more these days, people in the creative arts are only making material for people who are just like they are rather than for a large demographic, and then getting mad when the people at large don't like it. Depending upon who you talk to, a large part of that's why the comic book industry is collapsing in the US.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 27, 2019 16:20:33 GMT
What does the average viewer know? They shouldn’t even be allowed to watch these shows. It wouldn't surprise me if some exec somewhere was thinking this for real. It seems like more and more these days, people in the creative arts are only making material for people who are just like they are rather than for a large demographic, and then getting mad when the people at large don't like it. Depending upon who you talk to, a large part of that's why the comic book industry is collapsing in the US. "Wagner's music is much better than it sounds" just in case you think artistical pretensiousness is anything new.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 27, 2019 16:20:42 GMT
It's fairly clear at this point that no one behind the camera knows or cares anything about this series. Whittaker herself is, at this point, coming over to me as someone who was badly miscast in a role she simply doesn't have the range to play. At best season 12 will involve the BBC having taken the writing duties away from Chibnall and getting people in who do actually know what they are writing for. But at the moment I'm not convinced Whittakers performance is going to improve even then. Who is handling episode direction? That could be a big part of it as well, if the episode directors aren't doing their job. This is, in fact, a big issue with the world of voice acting. For example, voice actor Brad Swaile essentially played the same character in both "Transformers: Energon" and "Soul Taker", but the latter performance is *far* more on point than the former due to the former show's voice directors being nigh worthless (even quasi-authoritative sources have criticized the overall voice acting for the show). My guess is that someone wanted a female Doctor to show how "progressive" they were, especially since the BBC has tried to implement "diversity" quotas, and so Whittaker was hired without a sufficiently thorough vetting process. Act in haste, repent in leisure.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 27, 2019 16:27:00 GMT
It wouldn't surprise me if some exec somewhere was thinking this for real. It seems like more and more these days, people in the creative arts are only making material for people who are just like they are rather than for a large demographic, and then getting mad when the people at large don't like it. Depending upon who you talk to, a large part of that's why the comic book industry is collapsing in the US. "Wagner's music is much better than it sounds" just in case you think artistical pretensiousness is anything new. There are individual issues of individual comic books where it's alarmingly common to see 20+ copies rotting on the shelves at retail weeks or even months after release because they were so awful nobody wanted to get them once the first reviews came out, but that the shops can't send back because the publisher won't accept returns.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 27, 2019 17:08:04 GMT
The only streaming service the BBC has is the iPlayer, which is UK only. I don't think that their charter would cover them setting up another streaming service outside the UK or being part of one - due to the massive costs involved which I don't think they could remotely justify let alone actually afford.
It is therefore highly likely that the BBC's deal with Netflix will remain in place. Although last time I checked there were being very tardy in getting episodes up on Netflix. It is likely to be the case here as well.
I had a chance to make a comment to a comic book creator on a Twitch stream about 'Diversity'. My comment was how diversity purely for its own sake was the problem. He disagreed with some line about how it was needed. Missing the point that adding 'diversity' for its own sake means that you start off with characters who's defining traits are that diversity. Which is, well, basically starting off being sexist/racist etc and missing the point.
It IS a problem that the creative aspects to the entertainment industry are stuck in their own little world and reinforcing their viewpoints. (Which is not unique to them). They have lost sight of the fact that they are still a business, and are producing a 'product' for sale. It's the reverse of, say, EA that thinks only of the money. However both 'sides' tend to end up regarding their customers as annoyances rather than the reason they are in a position to make a product to start with.
You can change things, give different viewpoints and get an audience to think. But you have to be careful how you do this, and do it in a way that doesn't result in said customers leaving and going elsewhere. The 'old school' writers and creators understood this; Looking back at Doctor Who they had, back in the late 60's, a 3rd Doctor story where he ends up in a prison. The Doctor is one of four new prisoners, the others being a white man, a black woman and an Indian Man. Now you'd think this was a clear cut case of racism, two 'coloured' people as prisoners! Horrible! Except that at this date on UK TV you had a better chance of seeing a Yeti than a black woman and any Indian would either be from India in some drama or playing a shopkeeper. And there is the small fact that they are POLITICAL prisoners, a fact that is explained along with how this prison works by the Indian man - who as I noted would at this time on British TV been lucky to have been cast as the son of a cornershop owner.
Even Stephen Moffet, who many criticize for being an 'SJW', understood this need to be careful about diversity and how you deal with it. People screamed about the character of Bill from Capaldi's last season, and even now whine about how she would be telling the audience how she was a lesbian every five minutes. Actually its referenced three times in the first episode, because if it wasn't the story wouldn't make any sense. Then isn't mentioned at all until episode 5 (a single line about her rules about men) and the next (2) episodes she mentions being interested in a girl (who we see, and who runs out the door due to events going on). It's mentioned again in a later episode, which in context makes sense, and has to be mentioned at the end of the season in order to make sense of some of the story. So I can only conclude that those saying 'every five minutes she reminds us' are watching the season on fast forward.
Chibnall and the like however don't have this level of subtlety. Instead deciding to lecture the audience in a way that is as subtle as hitting them in the crotch with a hammer. If they can't do that in a script, or said part is cut, then they feel the need to show off their 'enlightened' position by screaming about it for no reason. Such as the writer of Solo opting to start screaming about Lando's sexuality a week before that films release, even though that had nothing what-so-ever to do with the film and was hardly going to convince parents to take their kids to see a film.
Worse is that they automatically take the stance that ALL criticism is based on the 'diversity'. 'Jodie Whittaker was miscast', 'This season is dull and badly written' 'There are too many companions'. Oh, you are only saying that because you are sexist and racist! Yes, because what I created is perfect and there is no other reason to explain people not liking it! This is usually followed by accusing those with problems of 'not being real fans', negative scores as being due to bots, and saying 'if you don't like it don't watch/buy it'. The latter worked so well for battlefield V....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 27, 2019 17:11:32 GMT
"Wagner's music is much better than it sounds" just in case you think artistical pretensiousness is anything new. There are individual issues of individual comic books where it's alarmingly common to see 20+ copies rotting on the shelves at retail weeks or even months after release because they were so awful nobody wanted to get them once the first reviews came out, but that the shops can't send back because the publisher won't accept returns. it is common to see overstocks of anything that the creators thought was great, but sold like crap. this ranges from fun size halloween candy to to cars.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 27, 2019 17:16:58 GMT
The only streaming service the BBC has is the iPlayer, which is UK only. I don't think that their charter would cover them setting up another streaming service outside the UK or being part of one - due to the massive costs involved which I don't think they could remotely justify let alone actually afford. It is therefore highly likely that the BBC's deal with Netflix will remain in place. Although last time I checked there were being very tardy in getting episodes up on Netflix. It is likely to be the case here as well. I had a chance to make a comment to a comic book creator on a Twitch stream about 'Diversity'. My comment was how diversity purely for its own sake was the problem. He disagreed with some line about how it was needed. Missing the point that adding 'diversity' for its own sake means that you start off with characters who's defining traits are that diversity. Which is, well, basically starting off being sexist/racist etc and missing the point. It IS a problem that the creative aspects to the entertainment industry are stuck in their own little world and reinforcing their viewpoints. (Which is not unique to them). They have lost sight of the fact that they are still a business, and are producing a 'product' for sale. It's the reverse of, say, EA that thinks only of the money. However both 'sides' tend to end up regarding their customers as annoyances rather than the reason they are in a position to make a product to start with. You can change things, give different viewpoints and get an audience to think. But you have to be careful how you do this, and do it in a way that doesn't result in said customers leaving and going elsewhere. The 'old school' writers and creators understood this; Looking back at Doctor Who they had, back in the late 60's, a 3rd Doctor story where he ends up in a prison. The Doctor is one of four new prisoners, the others being a white man, a black woman and an Indian Man. Now you'd think this was a clear cut case of racism, two 'coloured' people as prisoners! Horrible! Except that at this date on UK TV you had a better chance of seeing a Yeti than a black woman and any Indian would either be from India in some drama or playing a shopkeeper. And there is the small fact that they are POLITICAL prisoners, a fact that is explained along with how this prison works by the Indian man - who as I noted would at this time on British TV been lucky to have been cast as the son of a cornershop owner. Even Stephen Moffet, who many criticize for being an 'SJW', understood this need to be careful about diversity and how you deal with it. People screamed about the character of Bill from Capaldi's last season, and even now whine about how she would be telling the audience how she was a lesbian every five minutes. Actually its referenced three times in the first episode, because if it wasn't the story wouldn't make any sense. Then isn't mentioned at all until episode 5 (a single line about her rules about men) and the next (2) episodes she mentions being interested in a girl (who we see, and who runs out the door due to events going on). It's mentioned again in a later episode, which in context makes sense, and has to be mentioned at the end of the season in order to make sense of some of the story. So I can only conclude that those saying 'every five minutes she reminds us' are watching the season on fast forward. Chibnall and the like however don't have this level of subtlety. Instead deciding to lecture the audience in a way that is as subtle as hitting them in the crotch with a hammer. If they can't do that in a script, or said part is cut, then they feel the need to show off their 'enlightened' position by screaming about it for no reason. Such as the writer of Solo opting to start screaming about Lando's sexuality a week before that films release, even though that had nothing what-so-ever to do with the film and was hardly going to convince parents to take their kids to see a film. Worse is that they automatically take the stance that ALL criticism is based on the 'diversity'. 'Jodie Whittaker was miscast', 'This season is dull and badly written' 'There are too many companions'. Oh, you are only saying that because you are sexist and racist! Yes, because what I created is perfect and there is no other reason to explain people not liking it! This is usually followed by accusing those with problems of 'not being real fans', negative scores as being due to bots, and saying 'if you don't like it don't watch/buy it'. The latter worked so well for battlefield V.... I will agree that "look at me being diverse" storylines are usually hackneyed. the thing about Lando's sexuality is problematic because he hit on every woman he ever saw up until that point.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 27, 2019 22:03:38 GMT
I agree season 11 of New Dr Whio was terrible, unfortunately season 12 may not be much better. They have already started to film it with the same cast and show runner, Bradley Walsh who plays Graham the older companion is a popular actor and presenter and another of his shows TheChase won an award at the National Televsion Awards. www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-01-22/national-television-awards-ntas-bradley-walsh-facetime/He accepted the award via FaceTime as he was in South Africa filming Dr Who, They may be time to adjust later scripts because of view feedback but who knows.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 27, 2019 22:12:52 GMT
It's fairly clear at this point that no one behind the camera knows or cares anything about this series. Whittaker herself is, at this point, coming over to me as someone who was badly miscast in a role she simply doesn't have the range to play. At best season 12 will involve the BBC having taken the writing duties away from Chibnall and getting people in who do actually know what they are writing for. But at the moment I'm not convinced Whittakers performance is going to improve even then. Who is handling episode direction? That could be a big part of it as well, if the episode directors aren't doing their job. This is, in fact, a big issue with the world of voice acting. For example, voice actor Brad Swaile essentially played the same character in both "Transformers: Energon" and "Soul Taker", but the latter performance is *far* more on point than the former due to the former show's voice directors being nigh worthless (even quasi-authoritative sources have criticized the overall voice acting for the show). My guess is that someone wanted a female Doctor to show how "progressive" they were, especially since the BBC has tried to implement "diversity" quotas, and so Whittaker was hired without a sufficiently thorough vetting process. Act in haste, repent in leisure. Jodie Whittaker is a perfectly fine actress, having won the RTS award for best actress, been nominated for awards many other performances including Broadchurch and Attack the Block a science fiction horror comedy. Her performance as the Doctor may have more to do with the direction she is given.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 28, 2019 1:12:26 GMT
I had a chance to make a comment to a comic book creator on a Twitch stream about 'Diversity'. My comment was how diversity purely for its own sake was the problem. He disagreed with some line about how it was needed. Missing the point that adding 'diversity' for its own sake means that you start off with characters who's defining traits are that diversity. Which is, well, basically starting off being sexist/racist etc and missing the point. My personal standard: "How well can you describe a given character without referencing their membership in a protected class aside from the appropriate pronouns?" The harder it is, the more their membership in that class is an overriding part of who and what they are. There are allegations of a "Portland Comics Mafia" going on in the US comic book industry. Basically, the biggest US comic book companies - like Marvel and DC - don't hire off the street anymore. They only want people with resumes & portfolios, and typically that means "a published comic". The allegations go that the editors over a series of indie publishers headquartered in and around Portland, Oregon, realized that they could use this to their advantage by making it a point to refuse to accept any material from creatives who they felt had the "wrong" views, thus making it harder for them to get work at the bigger companies. I had to explain something similar to a group of "Star Wars" fans. When Leia first appeared in the late 1970s, there was a dire shortage of female leads in action properties, period. Rei, however, is up against a crowded field that includes several other female Star Wars characters, like Hera and Ashoka. Thus, while vintage Leia would make most modern "progressive" types get the vapors, Rei is getting called out for bringing so little new to the table. It seems to be a thing to where hardcore "social justice" types in media have all the subtlety of a nuclear weapons test. Take, for example, the infamous "Ask me about my feminist agenda" issue of Marvel Comics' "Mockingbird". The current writer of the series was mad that people weren't accepting her "social justice" spin on the book, so for the final issue of her run the cover image was of the title character wearing a t-shirt with that message. Or Sina Grace's run on "Iceman". The vast majority of the previous short-lived comic book series was Iceman using his status as homosexual to justify all sorts of behavior that most people would recognize as self-destructive, such as hopping into bed with random people and rushing into a relationship. This culminated in an issue where Iceman's elderly parents were treated like KKK members because they were actually having to process Iceman coming out instead of immediately accepting him right then and there. There's actually an issue of IDW's "Transformers" run premised on a shock trooper agreeing to go along with a politician's plan to brainwash the rest of his team if the politician agrees to also brainwash the shock trooper's gay crush into loving him right back. That's how bad it is. Last year a particularly "woke" comic book creator (whose name I can never spell right) made a social media posting which, in essence, declared that any black person who sided with a reform movement known as Comicsgate was an "Uncle Tom". Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 28, 2019 2:48:56 GMT
Take a look at the way DC handled Wonder Woman vs the way Lucasfilm handled The Star Wars Franchise or Chibnall has handled Doctor Who;
DC; Its a film about Wonder Woman, Patty Jenkins will be directing as the first female director to helm a film of this size. Customers comment on the ending being a little flat; DC; Humm, OK.
Lucasfilm; Its a film about a strong female character, FOR GIRLS! Customers; Wait, what? LF; SHUT YOU YOU SEXIST RACIST MANBABY! WE are not sexist and racist, see we hired a BLACK WOMAN as third assistant producer!
Chibnall; We have a strong female lead and a diverse cast. Customers; That was dull and uninteresting. Chibnall; SEXIST! RACIST! We have BLACK people in the writers room! We have WOMEN in the writers room!
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 28, 2019 3:01:55 GMT
Take a look at the way DC handled Wonder Woman vs the way Lucasfilm handled The Star Wars Franchise or Chibnall has handled Doctor Who; DC; Its a film about Wonder Woman, Patty Jenkins will be directing as the first female director to helm a film of this size. Customers comment on the ending being a little flat; DC; Humm, OK. Lucasfilm; Its a film about a strong female character, FOR GIRLS! Customers; Wait, what? LF; SHUT YOU YOU SEXIST RACIST MANBABY! WE are not sexist and racist, see we hired a BLACK WOMAN as third assistant producer! Chibnall; We have a strong female lead and a diverse cast. Customers; That was dull and uninteresting. Chibnall; SEXIST! RACIST! We have BLACK people in the writers room! We have WOMEN in the writers room! to be fair, DC is used to customers saying their films are a little flat.
|
|