Doctor Who "The Next Doctor" [spoilers]

[Stark]

Your blind acceptance of simpleminded retcons continues to amuse. If this gives you confidence in writing standards there's no hope for mankind.

[Thanas]

Exactly. How did the cyberman build spaceships when the biggest airforce they had was a freaking Zeppelin?

[Stark]

They clearly built up their techbase in the void where there isn't anything. Oh wait we retconned it so it's full of easy-access usb drives! Good thing you need some wierd spatial rift to access... oh wait?

[NecronLord]

The Cybermen have been out of the loop for over two years so their familiarity has not bred contempt like the Dalek's familiarity has,

They don't need to. Aside from suddenly being able to steal craploads of dalek stuff, why should we ever believe they're a threat to anyone outside the Earth? Hell, they couldn't duff up an alternate modern earth; they're only a real threat when they've got surprise.

The Judoon would smack them about like nobody's business if they tried anything. God help them if they run into other local military powers, like the Sontarans, the Rutans, or the real Cybermen. Well, actually, that last one would go pretty well for them.

They're already pretty contemptible as any kind of military power.


It's simple enough to justify them having a space ship - the technology was after all, according to the website stuff, based on samples of true cybermen that Lumic found, left over from The Invasion - it's quite reasonable to suppose they may have copied the basic concepts of cyberman space vessels in use by the forces of Mondas at that time.

A better question is how the fuck did they build this thing in nineteenth century London?

[Big Orange]

A better question is how the fuck did they build this thing in nineteenth century London?

The best explanation was that the Cyberking was mostly made in the void and was teleported beneath the Themes, the child labour was necessary since the Cybermen needed many disposable units to move the primitive machinery, and while the Cybus Cybermen had no hope of overpowering the Daleks in the Void, we're not shown what really transpired in the Void at all so there is room for endless speculation. And why would the Cyberking's disappointing firepower be a major weakness when it was only intended to conquer a barely industrialized mid 19th century Earth, where sailing ships were still common, with most of Asia, the Pacific, the Americas, and Africa being pre-industrial? The Cybermen plotholes do not seem as gaping as the Hollywood alien invader plotholes in War of the World or Independence Day.

And while I agree with Thanas that "Rose" was certainly more sharper written than given credit for and more meatier than "New Earth" or "Partners in Crime", Doctor Who has always been inconsistant pulp science fantasy and since S1 Russell T. Davies has always been manic depressive in terms of writing quality. However he must have done something right if "The Next Doctor" was the second most watched programme of the week.

And on a related note I had a right hefty chuckle at this, sure there are no homophobes but some people here do tick off two or more boxes on that spoof Bingo card (especially Stark).

[NecronLord]

The best explanation was that the Cyberking was mostly made in the void and was teleported beneath the Themes

The void which is full of nothing? And that hardly explains why the thing had big hinged pistons on it, exactly like the pieces of nineteenth century machinery I've seen, and was generally pretty much styled as if it came from that time.

What's more, they couldn't even teleport themselves - they fell from the sky remember - let alone a giant contraption, this time.

And why would the Cyberking's disappointing firepower

What disappointing firepower? She wanted to awe the locals, not destroy them - they would after all, be converted to become her new army.

However he must have done something right if "The Next Doctor" was the second most watched programme of the week.

Err. Not really. That's the Doctor Who spot, after Eastenders. That's where it was last year, and Voyage was frankly, a bit shit. That reflects the public's affection for the series, not the quality of an individual episode.

Also, that card is quite amusing, given most of the new who companions (Rose, Jack, Mickey, Martha, Donna) I can't see why anyone would actually 'judge them on the shapliness of their bottoms' they've all got bottoms I'd quite like to screw. Well, okay, not Mickey.

[El Moose Monstero]

Just caught the repeat on iplayer - seemed fairly forgettable stuff to me, I favour it over Voyage of the Damned I think, but that one was also largely forgettable - the only thing I can remember about it from last year was that it involved Kylie Minogue and a midget. I think Christmas Invasion remains a long way above any of the other christmas specials, but maybe it gets a free ride because it got to introduce the new Doctor and hence had a lot more to work with - even then however, it spent the first 45 mins not actually focusing on the new Doctor and playing with this concept of characters. I liked David Morrissey, although I preferred the idea of him being a conman or something trying to cash in on the doctor legend, but lets face it - he was the only actual character with anything more than 1 dimension in the entire episode. Even the doctor didn't have much to him this episode aside from a bizarre ramble about his assistants in the last 2 minutes.

I did roll my eyes at the "stolen" dalek tech. I thought the point of the voidship from S2 was that it and only it could survive in the void, and that the cybermen were more projecting themselves through the void via the cracks generated by the voidship's insertion. I assumed that when sucked into the void, everything taken by the dalek hoover was obliterated, rather than this idea of cybermen floating past daleks, stealing their milk money when their eyestalks are turned away.

Anyway - The ending was a bit obvious from the moment the balloon was introduced and as others have said, it was all just a little bit too formulaic. Not quite interesting enough to distract from the fact that the lab is at 7 degrees C and the feeling in my fingers was fading.

I might have to avoid the next 4 specials to prevent myself from becoming bored with Doctor Who before we get a fresh start with a new writing team and a new doctor, but I imagine I'll watch them at some point, if only to tick off a point on the haters bingo.

As to BO's card, I think it's a competent, hearty and well-meaning piece of irreverant humour which holds up to repeated reading with the caveat that the reader should use their brains with affable restraint. I don't think I'm very good at this reviewing business, I should consult Stark's gamers dictionary thread for help.

On a positive note however, I'm pleased to see that the BBC props department are taking their job seriously - I've just bought myself a cybershade toy...

[Hillary]

Yeurk - utter trash. You could walk a Cyberking (lol) through the holes in the plot - what the fuck was all that completely unnecessary stuff about children? Why introduce the stange monkey creatures and do nothing with them (even worse than the pigmen in Manhatten)? All that stuff about the Cybermen, stealing Dalek technology in the void and then breaking out of it seemed a little weak to say the least (although, of course, it opens up a route for bringing the Daleks & Cybermen back ad nauseum). Oh yes, and they 'happen' to leave the info sticks hanging around where anyone could find them.

And of course, the resolution. How do we stop the Cyber King? Oh, we'll turn the info sticks into magic-moral-implanters and the brilliant, evil mastermind behind the Cybermen will suddenly realise the horrors of her crimes and blow the whole show into smitherines (somehow). Good Lord, save us from RTD.

The sad thing is this. The scenes between The two Doctors showed that RTD is still actually capable of writing very decent drama, funny, sad and touching. If he didn't constantly feel the need to tickle the fanwhores, he'd still be some use to us.

[El Moose Monstero]

And of course, the resolution. How do we stop the Cyber King? Oh, we'll turn the info sticks into magic-moral-implanters and the brilliant, evil mastermind behind the Cybermen will suddenly realise the horrors of her crimes and blow the whole show into smitherines (somehow). Good Lord, save us from RTD.

That one baffled me - here's a strong female character who supposedly has an amazing mind who can control the cyberman, suddenly turned into a standard Mk 1 screaming stereotypical victorian woman? I might have blinked and missed something with that one, maybe there was a throwaway line of dialogue I didn't pick up on.

[Stark]

Don't forget she had a tissue of motivation for the whole thing, so you couldn't even care about it. Shit, she was less interesting than Dalek Battle Computer Schoolgirl from Rememberance.

[Ryushikaze]

I didn't get the ending as 'she suddenly sees the errors of her ways', but as 'she finally realizes the Cybermen were just using her, just like all the people she wanted revenge against', like she was realizing before the cyber-process connected her in, and took it out on them. She realized what they'd done, and she was pissed. She certainly looked pissed right before she exploded.

I agree, the orphans and the dreadnought made no sense, there should have been a HELL of a lot more children. A veritable army of urchins on the levers.

Personally, the most likely explanation for the dreadnought's presence is that it wasn't built by the cybusmen, but rebuilt by them after a failed mondas cyberman invasion left it there (The fire of 1666 has never been visited in Doctor Who, has it? That might be a reasonable two for one explanation), possibly after a crash landing. Or they'd been building it for ages, but there's no way that thing got built in any reasonable time frame.

The dramatic bits with the faux doctor were quite excellent, but the cybermen were just plain ill handled.

[Bedlam]

[quote="Ryushikaze"] (The fire of 1666 has never been visited in Doctor Who, has it? That might be a reasonable two for one explanation) [quote]

The Great fire of London was done in the 5th Doctor Adventure The Visitation. A group of alien reptiles are trying to take over the Earth using a super plague spread by some rats there storing in london. The Aliens need a flamable gas to breath and it gets ignited in the final battle killing them and the rats and starting the fire.

[Ryushikaze]

Ah. The 5th and 6th doctors are not eras I am familiar with, though I'm trying to rectify that. So, 1666 wouldn't work, but a rebuild of a Mondas ship is still more plausible than the 'need orphans to crank thinks' Cybusmen building the entire thing on their own.

[Crazedwraith]

I just got round to watching my recording of it. Completely and utterly nonsensical and forgettable. I wasn't even interested in the 'mystery' of the new Doctor also though his explanation of his sonic screwdriver and TARDIS were brief highlights as was the montage of previous Doctors.

[Jade Falcon]

I've got to admit that it was semi-watchable, but it was equally forgettable. It was more like a series of sketches badly knitted together than a story in its own right.

[Big Orange]

The void which is full of nothing?

Allegedly.

And that hardly explains why the thing had big hinged pistons on it, exactly like the pieces of nineteenth century machinery I've seen, and was generally pretty much styled as if it came from that time.

Maybe the Doctor was being too emotive of the Cybermen bleeding through from the Void like they did last time. The Cyberking was underground and likely came in from the Void (that Dalek transdimensional machine was onboard), but they were doing hurried and crude repairs beneath London.

What's more, they couldn't even teleport themselves - they fell from the sky remember - let alone a giant contraption, this time.

They would've been noticed sooner, falling out of the sky in their dozens over a major city (they cornered Lake and his family in a sewer).

What disappointing firepower? She wanted to awe the locals, not destroy them - they would after all, be converted to become her new army.

That crossed my mind as well, but either way it is convenient she didn't destroy too much of London, otherwise that would've have messed up the timeline more.

Err. Not really. That's the Doctor Who spot, after Eastenders. That's where it was last year, and Voyage was frankly, a bit shit. That reflects the public's affection for the series, not the quality of an individual episode.

Well RTD must've done something right if he helped to revive a long dead show and it soon becomes event television at Christmas with the same high ratings every year, despite the niggling plotholes. Moffat does the relatively hard sci-fi horror with more of a cult following and critical accolades, while Davies churns out the critic proof mini-Summer blockbusters on a TV budget.

Also, that card is quite amusing, given most of the new who companions (Rose, Jack, Mickey, Martha, Donna) I can't see why anyone would actually 'judge them on the shapliness of their bottoms' they've all got bottoms I'd quite like to screw. Well, okay, not Mickey.

Not quite, but SD.Net has gotten almost as silly as Outpost Gallifrey has, even though Russell T. Davies tenure has certainly run its course.

[NecronLord]

Well RTD must've done something right if he helped to revive a long dead show and it soon becomes event television at Christmas with the same high ratings every year, despite the niggling plotholes. Moffat does the relatively hard sci-fi horror with more of a cult following and critical accolades, while Davies churns out the critic proof mini-Summer blockbusters on a TV budget.

What the fuck is it with you and strawmanning everything until it's an excuse to bang on about how awesome RTD is?

[Stark]

Just get used to the idea that Big Orange's opinions - which are supported by no evidence or discussion because he always runs away - are more valid AND more pompous than yours, okay? It's the only way you'll get past this. I mean, remember when he went on about how critics loved xyz ep and then Thanas posted critics mocking the shit out of it's simpleminded foolishness? 'Niggling plotholes' is BO-speak for 'utterly absurd/contrived piles of crap weakly tying up/destroying four years of drama' and 'almost as silly as OG' = 'doesn't agree with Big Orange either'.

[Jade Falcon]

Just get used to the idea that Big Orange's opinions - which are supported by no evidence or discussion because he always runs away - are more valid AND more pompous than yours, okay? It's the only way you'll get past this. I mean, remember when he went on about how critics loved xyz ep and then Thanas posted critics mocking the shit out of it's simpleminded foolishness? 'Niggling plotholes' is BO-speak for 'utterly absurd/contrived piles of crap weakly tying up/destroying four years of drama' and 'almost as silly as OG' = 'doesn't agree with Big Orange either'.

Ratings don't mean quality. The bloody Spice Girls sold a lot of CD's, but they were still utter crap.

[El Moose Monstero]

Just get used to the idea that Big Orange's opinions - which are supported by no evidence or discussion because he always runs away - are more valid AND more pompous than yours, okay? It's the only way you'll get past this. I mean, remember when he went on about how critics loved xyz ep and then Thanas posted critics mocking the shit out of it's simpleminded foolishness? 'Niggling plotholes' is BO-speak for 'utterly absurd/contrived piles of crap weakly tying up/destroying four years of drama' and 'almost as silly as OG' = 'doesn't agree with Big Orange either'.

Ratings don't mean quality. The bloody Spice Girls sold a lot of CD's, but they were still utter crap.

There's also tradition to consider - the idea of sitting down at 7 o clock on a Saturday with the kids to watch Doctor Who is something parents who are of the generation to have done it as kids, are now doing it for theirs. The same can be said of the Doctor Who christmas special - the idea of watching christmas specials of anything is a built in tradition, it's like the Queen's speech. 5-10 million people watch the queen every year as a family, but how many people sit back at the end of the speech and say 'I didn't agree with all of that, I'm not going to watch it next year'?

[DaveJB]

Well RTD must've done something right if he helped to revive a long dead show and it soon becomes event television at Christmas with the same high ratings every year, despite the niggling plotholes.

All that proves is that RTD isn't crushingly, totally inept - he knows how to write, he's just too arrogant to accept advice from others, and gets hell-bent on including certain things he wants, regardless of how much sense it makes. Besides, the success of the new show isn't solely down to RTD either, the BBC are the ones who promote and schedule the thing. ITV's cowardice in only putting old movies and lame clip shows up against Doctor Who is also a major factor.

[Big Orange]

What the fuck is it with you and strawmanning everything until it's an excuse to bang on about how awesome RTD is?

No, of course he is not awsome all of the time at all and has gotten more repetitive in the last two years and desperately needs to move on to refresh the formula, but sorry I'm getting rather tired with him getting discredited as the worst sci-fi writer on the planet when he was one of the main people who helped to bring the show back and brought it back properly mainstream, instead of taking it the solidly NuBSG route where it would probably have 500, 000 viewers and be shunted off to BBC3 or 4. While high ratings are not a true sign of quality (bilge like CSI: Miami is probably the highest rated scripted show on Earth), how can you explain the Appreaciation Index taken by the BARB, with "The Next Doctor" alone getting a AI score of 86? And I don't see the vast majority of mainstream critics savaging Doctor Who either, even though the number of negative criticisms is slowly increasing. And Doctor Who has not been given a free ride to get high ratings all of the time, when Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Take Away actually beat DW in the ratings war.

[Stark]

Needs more unsupported baldfaced pompous stating of opinions as fact.

Remember kids, it's 'doing something right' to have a successful, highly rated show... but not if you're CSI: Miami, which is both but crap. Uh oh.

[Thanas]

What the fuck is it with you and strawmanning everything until it's an excuse to bang on about how awesome RTD is?

No, of course he is not awsome all of the time at all and has gotten more repetitive in the last two years and desperately needs to move on to refresh the formula, but sorry I'm getting rather tired with him getting discredited as the worst sci-fi writer on the planet when he was one of the main people who helped to bring the show back and brought it back properly mainstream

WTF are you talking about? Would you like some more straw so you can erect a bigger strawman?

, instead of taking it the solidly NuBSG route where it would probably have 500, 000 viewers and be shunted off to BBC3 or 4.

Call me crazy, but guess which one has better quality?

While high ratings are not a true sign of quality (bilge like CSI: Miami is probably the highest rated scripted show on Earth), how can you explain the Appreaciation Index taken by the BARB, with "The Next Doctor" alone getting a AI score of 86?

Appeal to popularity. Nice to see you continue to stick by your old tricks.

And I don't see the vast majority of mainstream critics savaging Doctor Who either, even though the number of negative criticisms is slowly increasing. And Doctor Who has not been given a free ride to get high ratings all of the time, when Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Take Away actually beat DW in the ratings war.

Your point does not help you a lot, considering that if DW is loosing viewers, than your giant appeal to popularity is even more worthless.

[El Moose Monstero]

Sorry I'm getting rather tired with him getting discredited as the worst sci-fi writer on the planet when he was one of the main people who helped to bring the show back and brought it back properly mainstream.

I don't think anyone here would label him as the worst sci-fi writer on the planet, and even if he was, being a shit writer and a good producer are not mutually exclusive.

The apalling nonsense (for me) of Journey's End and the slide in overall quality from S2 onwards (personal opinion) doesn't take away the fact that he was part way responsible for bringing Doctor Who back, but saying 'he brought Doctor Who back' is not an answer to 'his episode quality has deteriorated' or 'the series is becoming formulaic and stagnating'. Hell, George Lucas brought Star Wars back for a new generation and huge audiences queued to see it, but does that excuse any criticisms of the prequel trilogy?

Having watched the Doctor Who Proms on the Beeb, and seeing all the kids who were thrilled by the presence of the cybermen and daleks, I'm actually inclined to let RTD off to some extent, certainly with his dalek overuse and the return of Davros. Lets face it, Doctor Who is sold as 'family entertainment', and kids are loving it (as presumably partially reflected in the ratings and views) and the reactions they had to Davros appearing in the show gave me a more charitable view to that particular irritation. One look at the audience at the Proms, with kids singing along to music that was only on screen for a few seconds shows you RTD and the BBC's success in this regard. He's taken Doctor Who from the arms of nostalgia and given it to a whole new generation of kids who will watch it with their parents every Saturday.

That's great. Him, his creative team and the guy from the Beeb who made the decision to green light it deserve credit for that. It does not mean that all of the episodes magically become amazing quality, it does not shield RTD from any criticism relating to episodes he pens or the general quality of the seasons he oversees.

The lack of 'savaging' in mainstream criticisms may be true, but how much attention is given by a TV critic to a family entertainment show? You don't see Merlin (despite it's shitness, campness, predictability etc., still a slightly guilty pleasure for me when I come across it) being labelled as shite so much as just ignored, certainly in the TV guides, and when did you ever see critics reviewing Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway?

Ultimately, it's important to remember that SDN is not a forum full of 9 year olds. It does not necessarily reflect the target audience aimed for by the BBC and so will clearly not mirror the ratings and appreciation indexes used by the ratings compilers. This does not make criticisms voiced here invalid, and as long as Doctor Who is 'family entertainment', it is still fair for Doctor Who to be criticised and compared (favourably or otherwise) to other family friendly sci-fi or other family entertainment. Star Trek, I would class as family entertainment and sci-fi, I watched it as a young child with my father, as a teenager and again as an adult, and I find different things to appreciate. Watching the star trek films as a child, it was the source of spaceships and the early interest in scifi in my drawings, as a teenager, I liked the battles and the characters, and when I watch it now, I appreciate the characters and the acting where merited.

And I was able to let it go and take the best bits away with me when it finally curled up and died.

And apparently, was able to write long winded and possibly pretentious posts about it too. I submit my soul for any STRAK who can devour it.