S5E13: The Big Bang

Clavius wrote:

However, am I wrong or did Stephen Moffat just pull a "JJ Abrams" on the Doctor Who universe?

Wrong. When the Doctor was returned to the Time Stream, everything that did occur, happened. He mentions River's Journal - previously blank - had been restored.

Quote :

And maybe I missed something, but was the Rory that Amy finally married still an Auton or was he restored to human when the universe was rebooted?)

Unless we find out otherwise in the Christmas Special, I'm going to say he's Human again. While everything was restored when the Doctor re-entered the Time Stream, it happened after Rory and Amy were married. So I think Rory's stuck with being mortal again.

Indeed. With the universe rebooted, Rory should be a human being again, and seems to be exactly that.

========================================
...^o^CORVUS^o^
Doctor Who: The Winds of Time

Rust wrote:

Clavius wrote:

However, am I wrong or did Stephen Moffat just pull a "JJ Abrams" on the Doctor Who universe?

Wrong. When the Doctor was returned to the Time Stream, everything that did occur, happened. He mentions River's Journal - previously blank - had been restored.

Of course. DUH. See, this is one of those episodes that demands repeat viewings.

Well, its good enough to justify repeat viewings without the need to try to catch what ya may have missed

Heck, I've watched "Vincent and the Doctor" 4 times so far, so yeah, I'll catch this a time or two more in the very near future *lol*

Oh, and I'll once again state that the comparison to LOST is simply unfair. I've watched a bit of that show, and there's a huge difference between carrying over 2-3 little mysteries into the next season, when compared to carrying over about 2-dozen.

...

Or more.

========================================
...^o^CORVUS^o^
Doctor Who: The Winds of Time

BEST. FINALE. EVER!!!! It was well worth all the angst I went through anticipating this!!! Rory FTW!!!!!

I found this episode deeply satisfying, despite there being a great many questions left unanswered. What we did get was a satisfying resolution to the whole "Cracks in Time" arc, the establishment of two great companions (the Doctor's first companion couple!) every bit as "special" as Rose in their own ways, and some great "wibbly wobbly, timey wimey" moments.

While I wish we'd got more answers regarding River, the Pandorica, the alliance, and the "Silence" threatening to fall, I am much happier with this partial ending than I would have been a rushed one or one full of holes. Since Doctor Who seasons are about half as long as American sci-fi shows' seasons, I don't mind the plot threads being carried over to next year and given time to breathe and unfold properly. Sure, the wait will be rough, but after this episode, I feel pretty confident it will be worth it.

Matt Smith is great, and I feel Moffat has really delivered. I know his pet themes aren't for everyone, but for me, this is a pretty exciting period for Doctor Who.

Once again I have to say thanks to those posters that have provided explanations. Even though I plan on watching at least the last two stories again soon I seem to have a better understanding. This is why I was a little frustrated before and not having any one around me who watches the show to bounce ideas off of can be a hindrance.

So what caused the TARDIS to explode in the first place? Was it something to do with River's piloting? Did the Pandorica restore it before it was completely destroyed? If this is so, then that would explain why the Doctor only retrieved a piece of the TARDIS and nothing else. Who was the owner of the mysterious voice? Probably will find out the answer to this next season, right?

Like someone mentioned before, I think this is definitely a timey wimey situation which sort of gives me a headache when I try to figure it out.

Who's the other person that voted this episode rubbish? They don't seem to be posting.

So...this big bad prison held the Doctor for approximately...ten minutes?

It had it's moments, the time jumping back and forth (even leaping back to give 'lil Amy her drink - thought that was cute) the restoration field, but it just felt like one big cheat after another to me. I suspend a lot of disbelief watching Who, but really. The universe ending didn't even seem to be that big a deal.

I was sorta hoping he'd keep the fez too.

jfh1970 wrote:

So what caused the TARDIS to explode in the first place? Was it something to do with River's piloting?

No, River's piloting didn't seem to have anything to do with it. Whomever was controlling the TARDIS remotely seems to be the responsible party.

jfh1970 wrote:

Did the Pandorica restore it before it was completely destroyed? If this is so, then that would explain why the Doctor only retrieved a piece of the TARDIS and nothing else.

"Marty, you're not thinking fourth dimensionally."

Explosions generally leave shrapnel, and the TARDIS shell is VERY durable. And remember, the explosion was a cross-temporal event. It was occurring during the whole season. The shrapnel was snatched at a point in time before the universe finally ended completely.

jfh1970 wrote:

Who was the owner of the mysterious voice? Probably will find out the answer to this next season, right?

The Doctor brought that up at the very end, so yeah, you probably will. That's a huge part of the ongoing story-arc. Moffat isn't a fool: he knows he'll loose his audience if he stretches these things out too long, and leaves too many questions.

jfh1970 wrote:

Like someone mentioned before, I think this is definitely a timey wimey situation which sort of gives me a headache when I try to figure it out.

Yes, it was very timey-wimey, and that was a huge part of the fun. I love when this show makes us think.

And I didn't feel cheated at all because this was the Doctor being brilliant and thinking his way out of this situation at great speed, as opposed to RTD's finales where we get the God Machine ending, or endings that just don't seem to satisfy.

So, for those of you who voted "rubbish", you get a sigh, followed by "tsk tsk".

========================================
...^o^CORVUS^o^
Doctor Who: The Winds of Time

On the mention of RTD, granted his endings might've been over the top sometimes as well as unsatisfactory but at least we would get an ending. I guess that's what I'm used to and what I was expecting from this last episode.

I was one of the people that voted this story a rubbish story and if I could change my vote it would be disappointing because I still feel like I was left out in the cold. Not only am I not into questions being constantly thrown out with no answers ala Lost(and I do know that's not a totally fair comparison, but it's the only one I can come up with at the moment), but I'm not into writers who think "I'm more clever than you! Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah." I'm sure this was unintentional, but that's how I felt and I'm sure there are others who watched did as well which in turn made me feel "alienated" from one of my all time favorite shows.

Again, I have to watch at least these last two stories again because I have a feeling that I may feel a bit differently on second viewing and perhaps my vote will be higher too.

Have you ever watched any Joss Whedon shows? If you haven't, I suggest you don't. *LOL*

Sorry if I get preachy here. I don't mean anything personal by it, it just reminds me of trends in televised fiction that bug me.

Personally, I feel that when you get an "ending", there's no more story to tell. Every ending should lead into a new beginning, and that's what we've gotten here. Life doesn't wrap everything up for us into neat little packages to be easily digested. There's always more questions demanding answers, and the day I wake up and find I have no more questions is the day I hope I take my last breath.

Frankly, I'm tired of being able to easily predict where a show is going and what's going to happen to characters. I'm tired of stretching out things that can be resolved quickly, and conversely tired of story-lines that deserve long arcs getting short-changed because people are demeaning answers.

As has been stated several times: Doctor Who doesn't get 22 episodes a year to sort through. It gets 13. Moffat himself has said that his wish for the show would be to get more episodes every year. That would be absolutely superb, but its not going to happen. As such, I not only am okay with a few lingering questions that WILL get answered, and in fact, I was hoping for it.

When I want instant-gratification fiction, I know where to go to get it. Right now, Doctor WHO is the only tv show I watch these days. I don't want Doctor WHO to become short attention-span theater. I want thrills, fun, and mysteries, and that's what Moffat has given me.

*Disengaging Rant-Mode*

I really hope that upon re-watching that you feel a bit differently. If not, so be it. But I think you will.

========================================
...^o^CORVUS^o^
Doctor Who: The Winds of Time

I rather liked the change from previous series finales. No big monster or villain, just a big event that the Doctor needed to handle. And they even set up why Amy remembering the Doctor would bring him back.

And I really liked that they didn't answer EVERYTHING, and even mentioned it. Like the Ood told the 10th Doctor "The story never ends." Leaving a couple threads hanging for the next series (or Christmas special) was a nice way to remind us of that. Our characters have nothing to fear of the cracks in time and space, but they have yet to discover who caused them.

^o^CORVUS^o^ wrote:

Have you ever watched any Joss Whedon shows? If you haven't, I suggest you don't. *LOL*

Not into Whedon at all so no worries there.

^o^CORVUS^o^ wrote:

As has been stated several times: Doctor Who doesn't get 22 episodes a year to sort through. It gets 13. Moffat himself has said that his wish for the show would be to get more episodes every year. That would be absolutely superb, but its not going to happen.

Poor Moff. I'm with you on this especially after the series was given less of a budget this year too.

^o^CORVUS^o^ wrote:

When I want instant-gratification fiction, I know where to go to get it. Right now, Doctor WHO is the only tv show I watch these days. I don't want Doctor WHO to become short attention-span theater. I want thrills, fun, and mysteries, and that's what Moffat has given me.

I'm not looking for instant gratifcation, but when I sit through thirteen episodes of mysterious questions I would like some answers. As I mentioned before, RTD provided endings and therefore it was a bit jarring for me as a viewer when Moff didn't. I know they're not the same but the change in terms of ending the series threw me off.

^o^CORVUS^o^ wrote:

I really hope that upon re-watching that you feel a bit differently. If not, so be it. But I think you will.

I have the feeling after much reading and discussion that I will too.

After all the angst, mind games, misdirection, what-have-you, this finale was just amazing and very satisfying to me...and I'm not *just* saying that because Moffat found a way to bring my favorite companion back properly human and alive, after senselessly killing him twice, and teasing us with the Rory centurion, though that honestly was a huge [probably the biggest] part of it. I'm also really surprised and thrilled that not only did I take to the Eleventh Doctor so quickly, which is a testament both to the writing and to Matt Smith's acting, series five has also produced the first companion I've cared this much about. The addition of Rory to the storyline has made this series so much more enjoyable for me. He grounds Amy, in a good way. He takes on the Doctor, but has also come to trust him and be his friend and really has everything it takes to be awesome! I loved the episode because it was big and mind boggling and it made me laugh and cry -- I loved the love Rory had for Amy that enabled him to wait for so many years just to see her alive -- the love Amy had for Rory, that her memories kept him alive, even if his body was artificial -- the Doctor's tenacity in putting things right, even if it meant he'd no longer exist.

Little Amelia was wonderful, and the wedding was fantastic -- Amy had parents now, and oh, the wedding clothes, and this Doctor cleans up pretty good himself!!! And so SO glad they got rid of the fez...but not the bowtie. Bowties are cool! And even moreso now!


Also, for the record, I loved the RTD era, huge, over the top finales and all, and I also love what Moffat's done...it only makes the show more epic in my mind!

jfh1970 wrote:

I'm not looking for instant gratifcation

I didn't figure you were, which is why I said it just reminded me of that trend. I think you just have LOST shell-shock

Oh, and if and when we get a Rory figure, it won't be an action-figure. Oh no, no, no.

It'll be an AWESOME-figure *lol*

========================================
...^o^CORVUS^o^
Doctor Who: The Winds of Time

^o^CORVUS^o^ wrote:

Oh, and if and when we get a Rory figure, it won't be an action-figure. Oh no, no, no.

It'll be an AWESOME-figure *lol*

TOTALLY!!!!

not the best episode i've ever seen, but not the worse.

funny, corvus, how you mention the god machine ending rtd used a lot(i'm not saying he didn't), but is that like throwing a bunch of screaming angels into a crack in time? (the most unsatisfying ending for me of a potential two parter)

as far as this episode went, i liked it better than the pandorica opens, and to be honest, better than any of the other moffat penned episodes this series. i have been the most vocal opponent of moffatt this series, and hopes this episode will be a step in the right direction(won't get my hopes up for the x-mas episode, though).

things not explained: who hijacked the tardis causing it to explode? who is the voice behind "silence will fall"? was this voice/hijacker the one who gathered all the baddies and created the pandorica?(i still have a hard time beilieving they all came together on their own).

my hope, going forward, is that amy will not always save the day(as she did this episode, which made me sigh again. a companion is a companion, the doctor should save the day). also, now that the amy character story has been explained, we don't need to focus on her in every episode and why she's so important(i find it's funny that the same people who hated rose, love amy. same things going on in my opinion).

as far as comparisons between rtd and moffatt, i will say this. rtd is a lot like joss wedon, and writes from the heart. while that may not provide a lot of mysteries, thrills, and fun, it provided tears, laughs, and smiles as big as skyscrapers.

i feel(my opinion) that moffatt takes the opposite direction, and writes from the brain. i was just watching a youtube video interview where he was interviewed by his son, and even his son asked if he was being "too clever" moffatt was actually thrown by this question. i don't think he knows he's writing at a higher level than rtd.

i'm not trying to group people here, but everyone i see who loved rtd's work, say they loved it because it made them laugh, cry, and smile. the people who are continually defending moffat write 30,000 word term papers on why his work is intellectually superior to rtd's, and don't understand why other people have different opinions(and if you don't write a 30,000 word rebuttal, you're opinion doesn't count).

i'm sure there have always been rifts in whodom(from the pertwee era to the baker era), but living through it now is something. i've had my intelligence insulted, my fandom challenged, and even been told my opinions are wrong. i don't blame moffatt for that, i blame the fans who are so gung ho for him that they are willing to fight for him no matter what.

I'm no RTD hater, I just wound up enjoying this finale more than RTD-penned ones.

I thought it was good (but not great) -- or great (but not excellent). Clever without being smart, or smart without being deep. It was engaging and satisfying, and yet it failed to deal with pretty much everything I'd hoped it would deal with.

The alliance? This episode didn't even bother to pay it lip service -- not that I expected that to be touched on, since last week it smacked of a gimmicky "OMG" moment. The reason for the TARDIS's explosion? Still waiting on that one. Who is River Song? Still waiting on that one. I do like River (and I think Alex is kinda snacky), but if we don't get start getting some real answers the next time she shows up... well, I'm going to start finding her less charming and more annoying.

And admittedly I kinda groaned when Amy wished the Doctor back into existence. Explanations notwithstanding, that just seemed silly to me.

ALSO, I'm confused about the timeline now. Supposedly sending the Pandorica and its reviving light into the TARDIS explosion rebooted the universe, right? Everything's back the way it should have been, cracks never happened, etc.? But the rebooted universe shouldn't have had the Doctor in it, and now he's in it and Amy and Rory remember him -- and River's book is filled back in -- so...

a) ...the events of Series 5 never happened. Amy and Rory only remember them because Amy is super-duper special; the Doctor remembers them because he's the Doctor; and River remembers them (even before Amy's memory restored the journal) because she's... well, we don't know yet.

b) ...the events of Series 5 happened, as exactly we saw them, in an alternate timeline that ended when the TARDIS exploded. The Amy and Rory of the new, rebooted timeline remember them because Amy is super-duper special (even though this Amy should technically be powerless because she didn't grow up with the space-time crack in her wall, as the TARDIS shouldn't have exploded in the rebooted timeline); the Doctor remembers them because he was recovered from the alternate timeline (or wherever) by the power of Amy's memories; and River remembers them because she is also, somehow, from the alternate timeline. Perhaps the Doctor and River (and Amy, owing to prolonged space-time crack exposure and her essence bleeding through realities) are multiversal singularities.

c) ...the events of Series 5 happened in the rebooted timeline -- because Amy's memories somehow made them real events -- except in a somewhat sanitized form. The events must have occurred without the cracks in time, as the TARDIS never exploded; they must have occurred without the death of Rory, because he's here now. Amy and Rory remember because of Amy's special status; the Doctor and River remember because of their respective knowledge.

c2) Or perhaps the events of Series 5 occurred in this rebooted timeline exactly as we saw them, with the cracks and with the death of Rory, except the causes/effects of those events didn't obtain because Amy wanted them overwritten. If someone vanishes or dies and Amy really wants them back, they come back. If Amy really doesn't want an event to last -- like Rory dying or the TARDIS exploding -- it goes away. Does that mean Amy could make people disappear simply by willing it? If Amy remembers a falsehood, did it happen? Sigh.

But for what it was -- a cute way of resolving one particular issue with a lot of clever dialogue and jumping back and forth and the Doctor wearing a FEZ (!) but not a lot of focus on bigger issues -- the episode was fun. The more I think about it, the more shallow it seems to me... but then I've felt that the whole ongoing "thread" of the crack has been treated in pretty shallow fashion and didn't really expect much more. So I guess the episode met my expectations and did so in a pretty fun way, but didn't exceed them or impress me.

bret_owen99 wrote:

i feel(my opinion) that moffatt takes the opposite direction, and writes from the brain...i don't think he knows he's writing at a higher level than rtd.

You may well be right about this.

Quote :

i'm not trying to group people here, but everyone i see who loved rtd's work, say they loved it because it made them laugh, cry, and smile. the people who are continually defending moffat write 30,000 word term papers on why his work is intellectually superior to rtd's, and don't understand why other people have different opinions(and if you don't write a 30,000 word rebuttal, you're opinion doesn't count).

I fall into this category you're talking about now, and while I have never intended to hurt your feelings or belittle you in any way, I know that at times I have. You need to recognize two things, though:

1. If Moffat is indeed "writing at a higher level" than RTD (as you suggested above), then it only makes sense the people who defend him to do so in lengthy analyses. Such people, who (hypothetically) respond to "clever" bits more than RTD's emotional moments, are clearly his target audience!

2. I have never said your (or anyone else's) opinion didn't count; I may have said that because it was brief and lacked elaboration I couldn't understand it, but this is simply a difference in communication styles. I will analyze something and write about it for as long as I feel it takes to state a thesis and support said thesis; as you and I have discussed before, that's a product of both my personality and my training. It is also the source of my occasional inability to make sense of a statement that doesn't have the same level of structural support. It doesn't mean I don't think your opinion counts, though! It just means I have to remind myself that the sentiment might have volumes of support, though it's all gone unsaid. That's not always easy, any more than it would be for someone to make sense of an argument written in a language they don't speak. I am trying, though! A lot of those "30,000 word term papers" aren't the criticisms they may at first appear to be...they're attempts to communicate more effectively.

Quote :

i'm sure there have always been rifts in whodom(from the pertwee era to the baker era), but living through it now is something. i've had my intelligence insulted, my fandom challenged, and even been told my opinions are wrong. i don't blame moffatt for that, i blame the fans who are so gung ho for him that they are willing to fight for him no matter what.

Like I said, I never intended to insult you. If I thought you were stupid, I wouldn't bother responding to you at all. As for your opinions being wrong, well, I don't think I've ever said that in those terms, and I never would. I hope you don't really think that was ever my intent.

Wes Crayon wrote:

It was engaging and satisfying, and yet it failed to deal with pretty much everything I'd hoped it would deal with.

It certainly failed to answer a lot of questions. I found myself relieved that it left some things unanswered, though; given the choice between waiting or getting a sloppy, inorganic answer, I'll pick waiting every time.

Quote :

The alliance? This episode didn't even bother to pay it lip service -- not that I expected that to be touched on, since last week it smacked of a gimmicky "OMG" moment. The reason for the TARDIS's explosion? Still waiting on that one. Who is River Song? Still waiting on that one. I do like River (and I think Alex is kinda snacky), but if we don't get start getting some real answers the next time she shows up... well, I'm going to start finding her less charming and more annoying.

Hopefully they don't draw these threads out too long. The final moments of the episode seemed to indicate these things were all next on the agenda.

Quote :

And admittedly I kinda groaned when Amy wished the Doctor back into existence. Explanations notwithstanding, that just seemed silly to me.

I agree it was silly, but I still enjoyed it in a way because the Doctor engineered the situation--it combined the fanciful with the clever. It's that whole fairy tale thing Moffat has going; you can either swallow it or you can't...you either respond to that kind of storytelling, or you don't. No "right" or "wrong" there, but it is chancy from a stylistic standpoint. I don't know that I would ever deliberately write from a theoretical framework almost certain to leave half my potential audience dissatisfied!

Quote :

ALSO, I'm confused about the timeline now...

Same here, but I find I actually like the feeling! It's as if the rules have suddenly changed, and I get to discover them along with the characters of the show. Of course, if they don't clarify some of this stuff in the next series, it's going to make this ending feel very, very sloppy.

Quote :

But for what it was -- a cute way of resolving one particular issue with a lot of clever dialogue and jumping back and forth and the Doctor wearing a FEZ (!) but not a lot of focus on bigger issues -- the episode was fun. The more I think about it, the more shallow it seems to me... but then I've felt that the whole ongoing "thread" of the crack has been treated in pretty shallow fashion and didn't really expect much more. So I guess the episode met my expectations and did so in a pretty fun way, but didn't exceed them or impress me.

I almost wonder if we shouldn't consider that a victory of a sort (I'm trying really hard to not reference Pyrrhus...and I just failed). As we discussed last week, there was a serious potential for Moffat and company to screw it all up beyond repair! In comparison to the utter catastrophe it could've been, this is pretty much a win, even if it was a bit light on substance.

Hey, if the timeline was re-written without the cracks, then Rory didn't die because he reached the TARDIS in time, instead of waiting for the Doctor to pull the shrapnel out of the crack.

mysterylad wrote:

It certainly failed to answer a lot of questions. I found myself relieved that it left some things unanswered, though; given the choice between waiting or getting a sloppy, inorganic answer, I'll pick waiting every time.

I think you might be placing too much faith in the writers! Some questions will obviously be answered at some point, but I think the bulk of them will be dropped completely. What's your preference when it comes to sloppy, inorganic answers or no answers at all?

Quote :

Hopefully they don't draw these threads out too long. The final moments of the episode seemed to indicate these things were all next on the agenda.

Some of them, at least. I don't expect the alliance to ever be mentioned again.

Quote :

I agree it was silly, but I still enjoyed it in a way because the Doctor engineered the situation--it combined the fanciful with the clever.

When you say that the Doctor "engineered" the situation, do you mean deliberately or accidentally? I think what made that wishing scene at all emotionally resonant (if silly) was how sad and beaten the Doctor seemed when he left Amy and went through the crack -- it was like he didn't feel he belonged anymore, so he wasn't even going to bother slipping back through the rest of his previous incarnations' experiences (though that would have been cool to see) -- and how he was brought back by the strength of Amy's feelings for him. If I think of the Doctor as deliberately faking his sadness in order to better impress himself upon Amy's memories so that she would eventually will him back (to say nothing of choosing Amy as a companion for that specific purpose), it seems less touching and a touch... sinister. I mean, even though things worked out in the end and everyone lived "happily ever after" (so far), the Doctor would have allowed Amy and Rory to suffer throughout the series just so that he could come back. I don't like that.

Quote :

Same here, but I find I actually like the feeling! It's as if the rules have suddenly changed, and I get to discover them along with the characters of the show. Of course, if they don't clarify some of this stuff in the next series, it's going to make this ending feel very, very sloppy.

Do you think they will? I'm pretty confident they won't, unless they have to to explain a specific event -- like the return of the Weeping Angels, insofar as they feel that needs to be explained (there could simply have been more Angels elsewhere, after all). Even then, I'd bet we only get a two-second explanation.

Quote :

I almost wonder if we shouldn't consider that a victory of a sort (I'm trying really hard to not reference Pyrrhus...and I just failed). As we discussed last week, there was a serious potential for Moffat and company to screw it all up beyond repair! In comparison to the utter catastrophe it could've been, this is pretty much a win, even if it was a bit light on substance.

Eh, I dunno. I didn't really expect Moff to "screw up" the second half, at least not in the way he could have. I did, however, expect him to ignore certain things (namely the alliance) and to fail to make the cracks in previous episodes -- which struck me as shallow, tacked on "clues" that didn't amount to much -- seem somehow important and compelling, because how could he do that? And he pretty much did that. So this may be a "win," but I would hardly call it a "triumph" or even a satisfying ending to the series as a whole. It was a semi-satisfying resolution to the two-part episode.

It's really the whole storytelling method -- of not only this series, but of the 2005+ series in general -- that I take issue with. In my book, if you want to tell a grand, episode-spanning arc, then you do that. It's okay to have some (even a majority) of standalone episodes, but every time the arc comes up there should be some substantial additions to the puzzle -- such that, by the time you reach the penultimate episode, the puzzle should be nearly complete rather than still being largely unfinished. And nothing about this episode made me feel like the Davies (and now Moff) method of storytelling is somehow superior to or better than that ideal.

bret_owen99 wrote:

as far as comparisons between rtd and moffatt, i will say this. rtd is a lot like joss wedon, and writes from the heart. ... i feel(my opinion) that moffatt takes the opposite direction, and writes from the brain.

I agree with this to a point. I'm not sure that the Whedon comparison is apt -- Buffy had a lot of heart but also built towards resolutions in what I found to be a very satisfying manner (think of how we begin most of the seasons without knowing who the Big Bad is to knowing all about the Big Bad and his/her ultimate plan by the end); Dollhouse had amazingly little of all of the above -- but I do think RTD is more focused on eliciting emotional responses and regards plotting and internal logic as secondary in his stories.

I'm hesitant to say that Moffat writes from the "brain" though. He does seem more focused on being "clever," but whereas his single episodes generally tie things together in an impressively neat fashion, his work doesn't strike me as being especially "intellectual" or "deep." Given how much Whedon seemed focused on that as well (especially in terms of dialogue), I'd actually argue that Moffat's work is more comparable to Whedon's than RTD's.

bret_owen99 wrote:

funny, corvus, how you mention the god machine ending rtd used a lot(i'm not saying he didn't), but is that like throwing a bunch of screaming angels into a crack in time?

No, its not.

Quote :

A deus ex machina (Latin for "god from the machine") is a plot device whereby a seemingly inextricable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new character, ability, or object.

That was being able to take advantage of a situation that had presented itself. There were no new characters, abilities, or objects present. The problem was solved with what was at hand, and it happened because of something the Doctor already had taken into account: the failure of the artificial gravity.

bret_owen99 wrote:

things not explained: who hijacked the tardis causing it to explode? who is the voice behind "silence will fall"? was this voice/hijacker the one who gathered all the baddies and created the pandorica?

Nope, not explained yet, and wasn't meant to be. We have the X-Mas special and the next series for that.

bret_owen99 wrote:

my hope, going forward, is that amy will not always save the day(as she did this episode, which made me sigh again. a companion is a companion, the doctor should save the day)

Actually, it was the Doctor's actions that saved the day. He hopped around and gathered the pieces and events needed to prevail. Amy was a piece of that puzzle, but ultimately it was him, flying the Pandorica into the explosion, that saved the universe. And, as for Amy bringing him back, she did it because of the seed he planted...the dreams, and the memories she carried with her.

bret_owen99 wrote:

as far as comparisons between rtd and moffatt, i will say this. rtd is a lot like joss wedon, and writes from the heart. while that may not provide a lot of mysteries, thrills, and fun, it provided tears, laughs, and smiles as big as skyscrapers.

While I agree that RTD clearly went to the "school of Joss", I disagree that Joss hasn't provided mysteries, thrills, fun, along with the tears, laughs, smiles, and hair-pulling moments of absolute fannish agony.

bret_owen99 wrote:

i'm not trying to group people here, but everyone i see who loved rtd's work, say they loved it because it made them laugh, cry, and smile. the people who are continually defending moffat write 30,000 word term papers on why his work is intellectually superior to rtd's, and don't understand why other people have different opinions(and if you don't write a 30,000 word rebuttal, you're opinion doesn't count).

You may not be trying to group people here, but that brush you just laid paint down with is so broad, several of us just got coated. As such...

First off, I understand perfectly well why people happen to have differing opinions: its because everyone has different experiences and viewpoints thanks to their own accumulated years of living. Everyone sees through different eyes, and ultimately nobody can understand exactly what its like to be another person aside from themselves.

Secondly, I've never said an opinion is invalid because its short. However, I can and will continue to ask for clarification if I feel it should be explained so I know why a person feels that way about a particular thing. If everyone boils their feelings down to two sentences on a constant basis, then that's not discussion, that's just quipping, and its more suited for twitter than it is to a discussion board.

I will never apologize for asking people to clarify/explain their position. Ever. And if that's a problem for anyone, then that's simply unfortunate. As I've said before, the purpose of a discussion forum is to discuss, and that's what I'm here for.

bret_owen99 wrote:

i'm sure there have always been rifts in whodom(from the pertwee era to the baker era), but living through it now is something. i've had my intelligence insulted, my fandom challenged, and even been told my opinions are wrong. i don't blame moffatt for that, i blame the fans who are so gung ho for him that they are willing to fight for him no matter what.

Not to be insensitive here, but that's internet fandom for you in general, and its been that way since people first started having discussions about things on usenet, mirc, talkers and so on. And its like that in every. single. fandom. out there, be it Doctor Who, or Star Trek, or Transformers, or Harry Potter, or Hello Kitty. Arguing and debating is something people do online. In some places they are more civil about it than others, and thank goodness for this place because its one of the most civil I have ever encountered.

* If you feel I've ever insulted your intelligence, then I apologize, for that was never my intent.

* I will never tell someone that they aren't a fan. I will, however, bring up how they express themselves as fans, and will challenge that if I feel its overwhelmingly negative on a consistent basis. I will not apologize for this.

* If I think a person is wrong, and I think there is something to be gained by discussing it, I will tell them so, especially if I think they've come to the wrong conclusion because of a misunderstanding, or because of misinformation (I despise misinformation, and will not hesitate to counter it).

I have been challenging opinions and/or correcting faulty knowledge since I was a child. When I was in kindergarten, one of my first report cards had a note on it that read "tends to correct adults", and it was true. And the essence of that remains true. I am knowledgeable, my knowledge base is very broad and in some areas very deep, and I am also a dedicated skeptic. I don't consider myself infallible: far from it, I am well aware of my weaknesses and will admit my mistakes, or errors in judgment, or own up to an incorrect answer, as all of those are opportunities to learn.

By that same token, if I believe that countering the opinions or incorrect conclusions will be of no value due to another person's pride, resolute pig-headed stubbornness, or an overall attitude that displays closed-mindedness, I will not bother. Those people I tend to write off, because there's nothing I can do for them.

And all of that, my nature to question and to offer correction, or to debate (often in a very lengthy fashion), is part of the essence of who I am as a human being, and this too I shall not apologize for. If I feel I've been heavy-handed, or of others point this out, then I will apologize for the force of my delivery, but not for debating in the first place.

* Lastly, I will never debate for ANYONE, no matter what, because nobody is above criticism. I'm a huge fan of Crow-creator James O'Barr, and when so many fans sung his praises and acted as if he could do no wrong, I opposed that. I've done the same in regards to Joss Whedon, especially of late because I think the Buffy "Season 8" comics have become utter tripe. And when so very many people over on another board slagged off on RTD ad nauseum, I left that place because while there's things that he did I did not like, I loved the majority of what he did with Doctor Who during his reign, and also thank him for bringing our beloved show back to us, the fans.

But as stated: nobody is above being questioned, nobody is above having their errors pointed out. I refuse to deify anyone. If I feel they are right, I will defend them. If I feel they are wrong, I will point this out. Its that simple.

Anyway, all of that was long-winded enough, I feel that I've been quite clear. I'm done for now.

Peace out.

========================================
...^o^CORVUS^o^
Doctor Who: The Winds of Time

Wes Crayon wrote:

It's really the whole storytelling method -- of not only this series, but of the 2005+ series in general -- that I take issue with. In my book, if you want to tell a grand, episode-spanning arc, then you do that. It's okay to have some (even a majority) of standalone episodes, but every time the arc comes up there should be some substantial additions to the puzzle -- such that, by the time you reach the penultimate episode, the puzzle should be nearly complete rather than still being largely unfinished. And nothing about this episode made me feel like the Davies (and now Moff) method of storytelling is somehow superior to or better than that ideal.

So, you wish, like I do, that the clues we have seen over the season, and maybe taken notes for, should actually allow us to solve the thread of the season!! I love mystery movies, and books, and sometimes, after I have finished them, like to watch them again to see if there were any clues I missed that would have helped me solve it. Most of the time, there isn't. But, I hate a movie that I figure out halfway before I am supposed too(Sixth Sense!)