Posted April 22, 2007 Richard Hurndall in the Five Doctors. Beat you Rokhed00. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 The "New New New" topic agian. No its not what I meant why could they of either a) not done this episode in New New York as in the New Earth's one, or b) just had these two episodes in new york aka 1930. All I'm saying is they put crap in each episode which isn't required for the season or for a episode, they could of cut out the whole hooverville thing and end up with them meeting the show girl person, or cut out the whole showgirl thing. I'm starting to side with Rokhed00 now that this is a great comedy series, really I laugh at the chessiness of it all the time, however this terrible scifi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 William Hartnell fan? Oh no no I mean the new series. I never had a chance to appreciate the old series. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 No its not what I meant why could they of either a) not done this episode in New New York as in the New Earth's one, or b) just had these two episodes in new york aka 1930.Yesterdays episode wasn't the second part of last weeks episode, so it why should they happen in the same place? It's two completely different stories at completely different times (one way in the future, the other ij the past). I really don't get what you're on about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 All I'm saying is they put crap in each episode which isn't required for the season or for a episode, they could of cut out the whole hooverville thing and end up with them meeting the show girl person, or cut out the whole showgirl thing. Hooverville was important, it was context. It showed the effects of the economical depression. It showed the leader to be the same as the foreman guy (missed the start so I missed out on the names), their personalities and histories were very much the same, they just went opposite ways. The hooverville also provided cheap disposable labour for evil foreman guy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 b) just had these two episodes in new york aka 1930. Yeah because hover cars, cat people, giant crabs and the entire population of the planet being killed fits in with 1930's New York perfectly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 ;423501]Hooverville was important' date=' it was context. It showed the effects of the economical depression. It showed the leader to be the same as the foreman guy (missed the start so I missed out on the names), their personalities and histories were very much the same, they just went opposite ways. The hooverville also provided cheap disposable labour for evil foreman guy.[/quote'] It was just another history lesson forced on us. It's a commendable thing wanting to try to educate children, but Doctor Who is not the time and place for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 It was just another history lesson forced on us.It's a commendable thing wanting to try to educate children, but Doctor Who is not the time and place for it. Have you heard of "Setting the scene" before? It's an important part of any TV show. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 Have you heard of "Setting the scene" before? It's an important part of any TV show. Could have been done without the history lesson, or perhaps you missed the Doctor strolling through the place giving a lecture like some history professor, and still set the scene. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 They could of easily reduced that episode down by my calculations a minimum of 15 minutes Well all the Simpsons 'storyline' could fit into 1 episode of it probably, but it isn't; you're such an idiotic child. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 It was just another history lesson forced on us.It's a commendable thing wanting to try to educate children, but Doctor Who is not the time and place for it. "Educate and entertain" is part of the BBC's aims so I suppose you should expect it... Have you heard of "Setting the scene" before? It's an important part of any TV show. Exposition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 It was just another history lesson forced on us.It's a commendable thing wanting to try to educate children, but Doctor Who is not the time and place for it. The show's been about educating the audience right from the very beginning. Why else would two of the First Doctor's companions be schoolteachers? The stories set in the past taught history, and the future stories taught science. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 ;423501]Hooverville was important' date=' it was context. It showed the effects of the economical depression. It showed the leader to be the same as the foreman guy (missed the start so I missed out on the names), their personalities and histories were very much the same, they just went opposite ways. The hooverville also provided cheap disposable labour for evil foreman guy.[/quote'] Just didn't see the need for them to go into so much depth before hand Yeah because hover cars, cat people, giant crabs and the entire population of the planet being killed fits in with 1930's New York perfectly. I was referring to whole darleks taking over the world thing could have easily of happened in new new york instead of 1930s new york. But as you say darleks and pig slaves so fit in to 1930s new york don't they. It was just another history lesson forced on us.It's a commendable thing wanting to try to educate children, but Doctor Who is not the time and place for it. All I can say is damn right rokhed like always. Have you heard of "Setting the scene" before? It's an important part of any TV show. Yes setting the scene is important but so is getting to the point, instead of waffling. Could have been done without the history lesson, or perhaps you missed the Doctor strolling through the place giving a lecture like some history professor, and still set the scene. Eactly couldn't agree with you more. Well all the Simpsons 'storyline' could fit into 1 episode of it probably, but it isn't; you're such an idiotic child. You see the difference is that they are only half an hour and they start of and end. Plus they aren't trying to be something which the new Dr.Who series is a boring history lecture forced upon me every couple of episodes. Whilst Simpsons is jokes attached to a storyline just like South Park/Family guy etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 The show's been about educating the audience right from the very beginning. Why else would two of the First Doctor's companions be schoolteachers? The stories set in the past taught history, and the future stories taught science. Read more from your link, it was originally conceived to be educational, but that aspect was dropped and it went on to be almost pure science fiction. The programme was intended to be educational and for family viewing on the early Saturday evening schedule. Initially, it alternated stories set in the past, which would teach younger audience members about history, with stories set either in the future or in outer space to teach them about science. This was also reflected in the Doctor's original companions, one of whom was a science teacher and another a history teacher. However, science fiction stories came to dominate the programme and the "historicals", which were not popular with the production team, were dropped after The Highlanders (1967). While the show continued to use historical settings, they were generally used as a backdrop for science fiction tales, with one exception: Black Orchid set in 1920s Britain. [ Whether or not science fiction actually teaches anything of current science is open to debate, but if anything it probably teaches more advanced theoretical science than you'd find being taught at a secondary school. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 Apparently I look like Doctor Who. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 Apparently I look like Doctor Who. Lucky for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 22, 2007 Apparently I look like Doctor Who. Which one? :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 23, 2007 Apparently I look like Doctor Who. Stay away from my girlfriend! :wink: Whether or not science fiction actually teaches anything of current science is open to debate, but if anything it probably teaches more advanced theoretical science than you'd find being taught at a secondary school. Maybe SOME sci-fi, but not Doctor Who surely. I suppose there are two kinds of sci fi at the moment, Hard Sci Fi such as Arthur C Clarks novels and Star Trek which concentrate mainly on the "Science" part, how technology will evolve and what the future will be like and the lessions we can learn from that. Then there's Soft Sci Fi which concentrates on the "Fiction" part, just tell us a good story involving robots and aliens and space and don't really concentrate on the plausability of it all. Doctor Who and Star Wars would fit into this category. Granted this is a huge generalization but that's how I see it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 23, 2007 Maybe SOME sci-fi, but not Doctor Who surely. I suppose there are two kinds of sci fi at the moment, Hard Sci Fi such as Arthur C Clarks novels and Star Trek which concentrate mainly on the "Science" part, how technology will evolve and what the future will be like and the lessions we can learn from that. Then there's Soft Sci Fi which concentrates on the "Fiction" part, just tell us a good story involving robots and aliens and space and don't really concentrate on the plausability of it all. Doctor Who and Star Wars would fit into this category. Granted this is a huge generalization but that's how I see it. And what does that teach anyone about science? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 23, 2007 And what does that teach anyone about science? What are you referring to? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 23, 2007 What are you referring to? Your more fiction than science scifi. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 23, 2007 Everyone's probably seen this, but I just tried to do an anagram for Mr. Saxon (John Simm's character) and here's what I found. Mister Saxon = Master No. Six If he does indeed return, he will be the sixth Master (regeneration). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 23, 2007 I liked the history/hooverville bits of saturday's epsode. It was OK. Some of the acting (tallulah) was shite. They really need to get better sci-fi writers in, don't they. The end bit was shockingly bad. And the pig-men? do they not have a special effects budget? "Just nip down the butchers for me, Russel". Wankery! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 28, 2007 Well, that wasn't great but it was OK. I don't mind them bringing the daleks back all the time, but do they always have to escape? Next episode looks corking though. I now await Rokheds enraged banter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 28, 2007 Well, that wasn't great but it was OK. I don't mind them bringing the daleks back all the time, but do they always have to escape? Next episode looks corking though. I now await Rokheds enraged banter. That's what I thought. Especially the very last sentence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
