**Spoilers** Series 8, Episode 2 - "Into the Dalek"

pixelburp

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny enough - and I'm not gonna be popular for this... - while the concept still has some way to go it does have a feeling that the show itself is approaching bottom too, or it's circling down that way. For me anyway.

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH I really do get the feeling that a shark is about to be jumped with Nu Who and Capaldi may well be the last of the Docs to grace our screens.

Don't agree with that, I mean the show is 50 years old and unique in TV drama in being able to reinvent itself on a regular basis; heck it's practically the modus operandi. The concept of 'jumping the shark' doesn't feel like it applies to Doctor Who given how easily it can just change direction on a whim. While this most recent episode was pretty poor, it's unfair to say it reflects the show as a whole tbh - I really don't think it can be overstated just how much the Daleks drag the things down at this stage, creatively anyway.

Angron

The thing with the Daleks is they just show up too often at this stage. They've appeared at least once per series (bar series 6), I'm just a little tired of seeing them.

tommy2bad

Two things from the episodes so far. Both the baddies have been negative images of the doctor everything he said about the clockwork robot applies to himself and the dalek, well the doctor as dalek is well used at this stage.
Now we have the I hate soldiers thing again, all the doctors have had an ambiguous relationship with the military but since the nu-who it's become positively acrimonious.
I suspect that Pink will become the catalyst for this theme and suspect that it will link in with the good man/ good dalek theme. After all while he carries a screwdriver instead of a gun, one of his incarnations was the War Doctor. Oh and the old phallic substitute notion was played on in ep 1 as well.
Given some good scripts this could be a deeper and darker doctor than any of the others. Having said that the problem may be summed up in one word; Moffat. He's likely to go for clever over deep.

Ron DMC

Um, did no one else notice the correlation between the "sick" Dalek and the plotline in Star Trek of infecting the Borg with a virus (later a pathogen) to have it spread and wipe out the Borg.

There's always been a correlation between the Borg and the Daleks: "Resistance is futile" etc (and also between the Borg and the Cybermen I suppose - assimilation).

Not saying that the "good Dalek's" sickness will be contagious (it started as a radiation leak after all), but perhaps the seeds of memories the doctor re-awakened will transfer to the Dalek collective consciousness and have an effect on them long-term.

Wibbs

pixelburp wrote: »

Don't agree with that, I mean the show is 50 years old and unique in TV drama in being able to reinvent itself on a regular basis; heck it's practically the modus operandi. The concept of 'jumping the shark' doesn't feel like it applies to Doctor Who given how easily it can just change direction on a whim.

Sure, yet it fell from the airwaves for nearly two decades of that 50. Colin Bakers doc was pretty poor and McCoys doc wasn't much better and the ratings plumeted.

While this most recent episode was pretty poor, it's unfair to say it reflects the show as a whole tbh -

IMHO Capaldi may be the one strapping on the waterskis(and I hate to say it as I like him as an actor). His first outing was very much a case of "please accept this guy in the role" including endless repetition about how old he looked and the really tacky inclusion of the previous chap to hammer this home. The second episode? I agree re the daleks, but IMHO they were rushed in to give a feeling of continuity to the show for the general viewership*(much like Ecclestones Doc met one early on in the revival). Again hammering home the "please accept this guy, look we even gave you daleks". Last night I rewatched both Capaldi episodes and though I was decidedly so so about Matt Smith at first(who did win me over), Capaldi's acting and physical presence is not up to it IMHO, or he's getting awful direction. At the moment anyway. Too often it's twitchy, not quite present and remarkably mumbled a performance, almost amateur theatre time. Again IMHO that's the spark you referred to that's missing. He so far has no chemistry with others, especially Coleman(even Hartnell clicked with his grandaughter. Plus the whole dark doctor stuff is now nearly as hackneyed as the daleks(and cybermen). Hopefully all this will evolve as the series goes on, so I'm adopting a wait and see vibe.




*the fans are a different audience as a general thing EG the general viewers would vote Rose as the best companion yet she's near despised by a large chunk of Whovians.

pixelburp

Wibbs wrote: »

Sure, yet it fell from the airwaves for nearly two decades of that 50. Colin Bakers doc was pretty poor and McCoys doc wasn't much better and the ratings plumeted.

What's 16 years among friends? :rolleyes: I think of all the shows potentially impervious to the concept of Jumping the Shark, Dr. Who is a stronger contender than most given its core concept is that of regeneration, the constant renewal of an entity into something fresh and new. And while the show in the mid 80s took a dip in quality (external forces did conspire against it, BBC head Michael Grade actively tried to bury it at every step), this same idea was evident there too, no more so than latter-day McCoy adventures when the show retrofitted itself from a garish pantomine at the start of McCoy's tenure, into something more focused on the life and growth of the Doctor's teenage, urban companion Ace. The execution was lacking, but it still demonstrated the creative width available.

I do agree the the new series will inevitably bite the dust and be cancelled, I agree its time will come, but trying to predict Doctor Who's death seems like an exercise in folly given its history. After all, it shouldn't have lasted more than 3 years when William Hartnell quit the role of what was supposed to be an educational children's show, but here we are, still talking about it

[...]Capaldi's acting and physical presence is not up to it IMHO, or he's getting awful direction. [...]

I actually think there's something in the above, and forgot to mention it in my original comments. While he brought some gorgeous shots to the table, the highlight being that appropriately trippy journey through the eyestalk of the Dalek, Ben Wheatley's direction often seemed clumsy and flat. He's a big name in indie cinema at the moment and it's not often you get a fully fledged movie director at the helm, but the episodes became sloppy and incoherent when a little action or vitality was needed in direction.

Wibbs

pixelburp wrote: »

I actually think there's something in the above, and forgot to mention it in my original comments. While he brought some gorgeous shots to the table, the highlight being that appropriately trippy journey through the eyestalk of the Dalek, Ben Wheatley's direction often seemed clumsy and flat. He's a big name in indie cinema at the moment and it's not often you get a fully fledged movie director at the helm, but the episodes became sloppy and incoherent when a little action or vitality was needed in direction.

Well TV and film direction is a very different beast and few enough can straddle both, or go from one to the other. Time constraints are a biggie. More than budget can be. So a film director used to a 6 week shoot(or more) with a year or more in preproduction, months in prep and another few months in post production(with the possibility of reshoots) is gonna get one helluva shock when he has to telescope that down to a month for all of it. If I was looking for a film director to shoot Who, I'd be looking for a bloke or blokess who had cut their teeth on commercials or TV and then made the leap to film, rather than someone who had started off in film. Guys like Spielberg, Ridley Scott or Alan Parker could do it in their sleep. Or I'd just rope in a bloody good TV director and save the hassle. To a director used to shooting Corrie or Eastenders a Who shoot would be a luxury.

T-Bird

Its a shame the doctor never said "sniff, sniff, sniff... Can you smell souffle........."

Angron

I'd rather he didn't. Having the new Doctor making too many references to adventures from the previous incarnations would be rather annoying.

FunLover18

I was also a bit meh on this. I think Capaldi is very good (definitely room for improvement) but the writing in this episode was pretty weak. Also thought Zawe Ashton, who is usually very good, was awful in this. I just didn't buy into her character at all. Agree that the Daleks have been overused, I thought the same about Strax et al in the first episode.

I could not care less about Missy.

Wibbs wrote: »

Sure, yet it fell from the airwaves for nearly two decades of that 50. Colin Bakers doc was pretty poor and McCoys doc wasn't much better and the ratings plumeted.

IMHO Capaldi may be the one strapping on the waterskis(and I hate to say it as I like him as an actor). His first outing was very much a case of "please accept this guy in the role" including endless repetition about how old he looked and the really tacky inclusion of the previous chap to hammer this home. The second episode? I agree re the daleks, but IMHO they were rushed in to give a feeling of continuity to the show for the general viewership*(much like Ecclestones Doc met one early on in the revival). Again hammering home the "please accept this guy, look we even gave you daleks". Last night I rewatched both Capaldi episodes and though I was decidedly so so about Matt Smith at first(who did win me over), Capaldi's acting and physical presence is not up to it IMHO, or he's getting awful direction. At the moment anyway. Too often it's twitchy, not quite present and remarkably mumbled a performance, almost amateur theatre time. Again IMHO that's the spark you referred to that's missing. He so far has no chemistry with others, especially Coleman(even Hartnell clicked with his grandaughter. Plus the whole dark doctor stuff is now nearly as hackneyed as the daleks(and cybermen). Hopefully all this will evolve as the series goes on, so I'm adopting a wait and see vibe.

I think it's unfair to blame the bits in bold on Capaldi. That's down to the writers. I agree with a previous poster that Moffat should go before Capaldi.