New Doctor Who Series
Discussion
Justin Cyder said:
Do you get touched by an Angel and sent back 5hrs to the start of the game?If so then its just like real Monopoly when it goes on and on until everyone either dies or goes home.
MartG said:
Aren't these the sort of plot holes that a story editor is supposed to spot ?
It seems that if something looks/sounds 'cool' then it is in, never mind if it blows the credibility of the whole story - just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Oh god.It seems that if something looks/sounds 'cool' then it is in, never mind if it blows the credibility of the whole story - just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Certain things on television...aren't true. They're MADE UP.
Also Father Christmas doesn't exist.
davepoth said:
MartG said:
Aren't these the sort of plot holes that a story editor is supposed to spot ?
It seems that if something looks/sounds 'cool' then it is in, never mind if it blows the credibility of the whole story - just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Oh god.It seems that if something looks/sounds 'cool' then it is in, never mind if it blows the credibility of the whole story - just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Certain things on television...aren't true. They're MADE UP.
Also Father Christmas doesn't exist.
Stories with plot holes are not satisfying to watch/read. It removes some of the intelligence from proceedings and ultimately won't leave you with something you fondly remember and want to revisit.
The trouble with Doctor Who at the moment is that it often tries to fit too much into too little time. It just comes over as being rushed.
Important plot points don't get the time, development and explanation they deserve. Sometimes all you get is a blurted explanation and I'm sure younger viewers miss a lot.
I don't remember Jon Pertwee or Tom Baker constantly shouting out explanations in a panic, or introducing resolutions to problems, seemingly from thin air as far as we can see.
There was time for the Doctor to elucidate. He was allowed time to puzzle, theorise, rationalise and find a solution in the manner of a detective. It helped emphasise the Doctor's intellect, calm and control and it was fun to watch and try to catch on to where he was going.
I also feel that getting away with a 5 second explanation can often allow plot holes through. A bit more time and depth would mean that things would be more exposed to scrutiny and the script writer wouldn’t be as tempted to get away with as much incoherence. They would in fact have more latitude to make things all fit together properly.
Putting each story into two shorter episodes, with a bit more exposition, would be a lot better. We’d get more weeks of Doctor Who in a row (just 5 weeks this time!) and it doesn’t necessarily have to cost much more, since we’d be talking about added dialogue to reinforce the action, not special effects laden scenes.
Of course I suppose the lighter weight episodes would be exposed for what they are in that format, but we would at least get the return of a cliff hanger ending every other week.
The trouble with Doctor Who at the moment is that it often tries to fit too much into too little time. It just comes over as being rushed.
Important plot points don't get the time, development and explanation they deserve. Sometimes all you get is a blurted explanation and I'm sure younger viewers miss a lot.
I don't remember Jon Pertwee or Tom Baker constantly shouting out explanations in a panic, or introducing resolutions to problems, seemingly from thin air as far as we can see.
There was time for the Doctor to elucidate. He was allowed time to puzzle, theorise, rationalise and find a solution in the manner of a detective. It helped emphasise the Doctor's intellect, calm and control and it was fun to watch and try to catch on to where he was going.
I also feel that getting away with a 5 second explanation can often allow plot holes through. A bit more time and depth would mean that things would be more exposed to scrutiny and the script writer wouldn’t be as tempted to get away with as much incoherence. They would in fact have more latitude to make things all fit together properly.
Putting each story into two shorter episodes, with a bit more exposition, would be a lot better. We’d get more weeks of Doctor Who in a row (just 5 weeks this time!) and it doesn’t necessarily have to cost much more, since we’d be talking about added dialogue to reinforce the action, not special effects laden scenes.
Of course I suppose the lighter weight episodes would be exposed for what they are in that format, but we would at least get the return of a cliff hanger ending every other week.
davidf4 said:
I don't remember Jon Pertwee or Tom Baker constantly shouting out explanations in a panic, or introducing resolutions to problems, seemingly from thin air as far as we can see.
There was time for the Doctor to elucidate. He was allowed time to puzzle, theorise, rationalise and find a solution in the manner of a detective. It helped emphasise the Doctor's intellect, calm and control and it was fun to watch and try to catch on to where he was going.
I also feel that getting away with a 5 second explanation can often allow plot holes through. A bit more time and depth would mean that things would be more exposed to scrutiny and the script writer wouldn’t be as tempted to get away with as much incoherence. They would in fact have more latitude to make things all fit together properly.
Putting each story into two shorter episodes, with a bit more exposition, would be a lot better. We’d get more weeks of Doctor Who in a row (just 5 weeks this time!) and it doesn’t necessarily have to cost much more, since we’d be talking about added dialogue to reinforce the action, not special effects laden scenes.
Of course I suppose the lighter weight episodes would be exposed for what they are in that format, but we would at least get the return of a cliff hanger ending every other week.
There was time for the Doctor to elucidate. He was allowed time to puzzle, theorise, rationalise and find a solution in the manner of a detective. It helped emphasise the Doctor's intellect, calm and control and it was fun to watch and try to catch on to where he was going.
I also feel that getting away with a 5 second explanation can often allow plot holes through. A bit more time and depth would mean that things would be more exposed to scrutiny and the script writer wouldn’t be as tempted to get away with as much incoherence. They would in fact have more latitude to make things all fit together properly.
Putting each story into two shorter episodes, with a bit more exposition, would be a lot better. We’d get more weeks of Doctor Who in a row (just 5 weeks this time!) and it doesn’t necessarily have to cost much more, since we’d be talking about added dialogue to reinforce the action, not special effects laden scenes.
Of course I suppose the lighter weight episodes would be exposed for what they are in that format, but we would at least get the return of a cliff hanger ending every other week.
The Original Doctor Who had one/two stories per season.All of these could easily be stretched to 2 x 30 min episodes and so fill in gaps that a x 45 min episode leaves.
ali_kat said:
The Original Doctor Who had one/two stories per season.All of these could easily be stretched to 2 x 30 min episodes and so fill in gaps that a x 45 min episode leaves.
Unfortunately, the real market for Dr. Who these days wants 45 minute episodes with bits of plot restatement to allow adverts to be dropped in to make up the hour.
trooperiziz said:
And the original doctor who was full of plot holes! As for solutions out of thin air, go back and count how many times he reverses the polarity of something 
I think there are a few rose tinted glasses around here...
Aye, well that might be the case, but I still think there's a problem with pacing in these latest shows. When things start happening, the level of knowledge transfer is relentless. There's no time to digest the gravity of one situation and think "How will they get out of this?", before it's done and dusted and we're on to the next thing. I think there are a few rose tinted glasses around here...
The first Weeping Angels story was very clever, it set up a premise that we clearly understood, so that when the sh*t started hitting the fan for the protagonists, we understood their jeopardy and where concerned for them.
marshalla said:
No it didn't. It usually had 5 to 8 stories at about 4 episodes of 30 minutes each.
Unfortunately, the real market for Dr. Who these days wants 45 minute episodes with bits of plot restatement to allow adverts to be dropped in to make up the hour.
So they did, my childhood memories (senility) are fooling me! Unfortunately, the real market for Dr. Who these days wants 45 minute episodes with bits of plot restatement to allow adverts to be dropped in to make up the hour.
Yes, so it seems
And yes, Classic had 100's of plot holes & no one gave a diddly squat when watching them at the time
we took it for what it was - fun 
Plot holes, like the Dr getting younger then older out of sequence of regenerations? 7th Dr Sylvester McCoy said he was exactly 953 in The Time and the Rani. But 10th Dr David Tennant said he was exactly 906 in The end of Time. Matt Smith has since gone from 909 in the Impossible Astronaut to 1,200 in A Town called Mercy which would have included the 7th Dr's 953 age.
I think science fiction (and stories in general) was better when there wasn't as much real science and technology in the world.
The audiences back in the day weren't as tuned into the science fiction elements of what was happening. Many ideas where fascinating novelties and the audience was more likely to just accept that they could be looking at a future extension of the science of the time and be impressed and entertained by it (even when the depiction of that science fiction through shoddy sets and costumes was somewhat wanting by today’s standards).
Now we have too many other examples of science fiction material to compare against and many pieces of technology that were once a wonder of fiction are now common place or becoming so.
We've become proper know-it-alls and are too ready to pick holes in things, instead of sitting back and accepting and enjoying the science fiction world we are being presented with for what it is.
That said, there is always room for good story telling style and pacing and a tale should always be consistent within itself, even if it isn’t necessarily consistent with anything else.
The audiences back in the day weren't as tuned into the science fiction elements of what was happening. Many ideas where fascinating novelties and the audience was more likely to just accept that they could be looking at a future extension of the science of the time and be impressed and entertained by it (even when the depiction of that science fiction through shoddy sets and costumes was somewhat wanting by today’s standards).
Now we have too many other examples of science fiction material to compare against and many pieces of technology that were once a wonder of fiction are now common place or becoming so.
We've become proper know-it-alls and are too ready to pick holes in things, instead of sitting back and accepting and enjoying the science fiction world we are being presented with for what it is.
That said, there is always room for good story telling style and pacing and a tale should always be consistent within itself, even if it isn’t necessarily consistent with anything else.
davidf4 said:
...
We've become proper know-it-alls and are too ready to pick holes in things, instead of sitting back and accepting and enjoying the science fiction world we are being presented with for what it is.
That said, there is always room for good story telling style and pacing and a tale should always be consistent within itself, even if it isn’t necessarily consistent with anything else.
Agree, we seem to want reality in our fantasy. But with access to the interweb on our phones, who hasn't looked something up at that moment, to (dis)prove something. A good story doesn't need tricks and distractions to keep you hooked, again I agree, consistancy with itself is important.We've become proper know-it-alls and are too ready to pick holes in things, instead of sitting back and accepting and enjoying the science fiction world we are being presented with for what it is.
That said, there is always room for good story telling style and pacing and a tale should always be consistent within itself, even if it isn’t necessarily consistent with anything else.
I'm no Pollyanna but you have to chuckle at these very straight faced explanations of this & that in Dr. Who.
Surely as grown ups it should be accepted as fantasy family entertainment? That's what we do in our house anyway, hang the plot holes - what we want is to ride through time & space, eye up a fitty companion & feel the need to hide behind the cushions once or twice an episode before Monday comes & reality bites once again.
Surely as grown ups it should be accepted as fantasy family entertainment? That's what we do in our house anyway, hang the plot holes - what we want is to ride through time & space, eye up a fitty companion & feel the need to hide behind the cushions once or twice an episode before Monday comes & reality bites once again.
Edited by Justin Cyder on Wednesday 3rd October 09:23
Justin Cyder said:
I'm no Pollyanna but you have to chuckle at these very straight faced explanations of this & that in Dr. Who.
Surely as grown ups it should be accepted as fantasy family entertainment? That's what we do in our house anyway, hang the plot holes - what we want is to ride through time & space, eye up a fitty companion & feel the need to hide behind the cushions once or twice an episode before Monday comes & reality bites once again.
Exactly. It's science fiction, not science fact.Surely as grown ups it should be accepted as fantasy family entertainment? That's what we do in our house anyway, hang the plot holes - what we want is to ride through time & space, eye up a fitty companion & feel the need to hide behind the cushions once or twice an episode before Monday comes & reality bites once again.
Edited by Justin Cyder on Wednesday 3rd October 09:23
I watched Blink again lastnight (New DW series 1-4 is on Netflix), it was good, and does explain what the Angels do well for their first showing. It works as a standalone programme too, it was one of those episodes that didn't have much Doctor in it, probably from doubling up on filming different episodes at the same time.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff