Series 11 Dr Who

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by pjknibbs » Sat, 13. Oct 18, 17:58

Antilogic wrote:
Sat, 13. Oct 18, 16:23
I wish I could agree with you, but then I recall that ST:Discovery has screwed with core designs themselves...and I could see some foolish people in the future deciding to do so well for Doctor Who :(
I don't think ST: Discovery really screwed around with core designs that much? The Discovery itself is a really odd design, that much is true, but their version of the TOS Enterprise that appeared in the final episode actually looked fairly close to the original--it was sort of a combination of features from the 1960s series and the movie refit version, and it looked absolutely fine, IMHO. The equivalent with the TARDIS would be changing the size of the windows, which they do from time to time anyway!

User avatar
Antilogic
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed, 6. Apr 05, 20:33
x3tc

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by Antilogic » Sat, 13. Oct 18, 18:19

pjknibbs wrote:
Sat, 13. Oct 18, 17:58
Antilogic wrote:
Sat, 13. Oct 18, 16:23
I wish I could agree with you, but then I recall that ST:Discovery has screwed with core designs themselves...and I could see some foolish people in the future deciding to do so well for Doctor Who :(
I don't think ST: Discovery really screwed around with core designs that much? The Discovery itself is a really odd design, that much is true, but their version of the TOS Enterprise that appeared in the final episode actually looked fairly close to the original--it was sort of a combination of features from the 1960s series and the movie refit version, and it looked absolutely fine, IMHO. The equivalent with the TARDIS would be changing the size of the windows, which they do from time to time anyway!
Starfleet designs were fine, good even. I'm mostly referring to the Klingon's. Generally because I think they made them oh so much worse, in both species and ship design.

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by pjknibbs » Sat, 13. Oct 18, 20:46

Antilogic wrote:
Sat, 13. Oct 18, 18:19
Starfleet designs were fine, good even. I'm mostly referring to the Klingon's. Generally because I think they made them oh so much worse, in both species and ship design.
I think they were following the lead set by the reboot movies for the Klingons' appearance at least, not sure about the ship designs.

Golden_Gonads
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri, 13. Feb 04, 20:21
x3tc

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by Golden_Gonads » Sat, 13. Oct 18, 23:20

Antilogic wrote:
Sat, 13. Oct 18, 18:19
Starfleet designs were fine, good even. I'm mostly referring to the Klingon's. Generally because I think they made them oh so much worse, in both species and ship design.
From the trailer, Klingons and their ships for Season Two will be much more inline with previous appearances. Though Klingons are more Next Generation in appearance compared with the originals.

User avatar
Antilogic
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed, 6. Apr 05, 20:33
x3tc

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by Antilogic » Sun, 14. Oct 18, 01:00

Golden_Gonads wrote:
Sat, 13. Oct 18, 23:20
Antilogic wrote:
Sat, 13. Oct 18, 18:19
Starfleet designs were fine, good even. I'm mostly referring to the Klingon's. Generally because I think they made them oh so much worse, in both species and ship design.
From the trailer, Klingons and their ships for Season Two will be much more inline with previous appearances. Though Klingons are more Next Generation in appearance compared with the originals.
\o/

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by pjknibbs » Sun, 14. Oct 18, 02:27

Golden_Gonads wrote:
Sat, 13. Oct 18, 23:20
From the trailer, Klingons and their ships for Season Two will be much more inline with previous appearances. Though Klingons are more Next Generation in appearance compared with the originals.
I don't think anyone was actually asking for Klingons to look like dusky humans with impressive moustaches, were they? :D

(Having said that, I just went and watched a season 2 trailer for Discovery and didn't see a single Klingon in it...have you a link to the one you saw that did?).

Golden_Gonads
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri, 13. Feb 04, 20:21
x3tc

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by Golden_Gonads » Sun, 14. Oct 18, 18:10

pjknibbs wrote:
Sun, 14. Oct 18, 02:27
(Having said that, I just went and watched a season 2 trailer for Discovery and didn't see a single Klingon in it...have you a link to the one you saw that did?).
It was the same trailer you saw, and if I'm honest, I never caught it either. However I heard of it elsewhere and a quick nose around shows this screengrab: https://www.newsweek.com/star-trek-disc ... te-1160456

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by pjknibbs » Sun, 14. Oct 18, 20:56

Ah, OK. I actually quite like the explanation given (Klingons shave in time of war and grow their hair out when they're at peace)--it adds a bit to the lore without directly contradicting anything we've seen before.

Back on topic, I just watched the second episode of Who, and I definitely wasn't as impressed with it as I was with the first episode. It seemed to me that Chris Chibnall was deliberately trying to add more "sciencey bits" and making a hash of it:
Spoiler
Show
There was the perfect Prometheus moment where the group ran straight in front of a crashing spaceship without running up the short bank to the side and getting out of the way. They said at least twice that the atmosphere of the planet was toxic, which made it pretty amazing that nobody had any problem breathing it for a day or more. The "acetylene fields" were an absolute joke--first off, acetylene being lighter than air doesn't mean it settles into a layer 3 feet off the ground, it disappears off into the distance; if they *had* somehow ignited such a layer of acetylene immediately above them, it would have blown more than their socks off; and carbon dioxide is heavier than air, so it would fall out of that flaming layer and suffocate the people lying underneath it in short order.

Then there was no reason for Epzo to change his mind as massively as he did at the end and no reason for Ilin to kow-tow to his threats. As for the new TARDIS interior--I hated it. It looked gloomy, and I still don't understand why the TARDIS can completely re-build its interior but still has to use controls on the console that look like they came from a skip sometime around 1953.

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by Bishop149 » Mon, 15. Oct 18, 10:45

Ok, first the Star Trek tangent about Klingons.

I dislike almost everything about the way Disco treats the Klingons, from the entire aesthetic to the stupid stilted way they made them talk. Yes Klingon is a rather guttural language, but this doesn't mean you have to sound like you're tripping over your syllables the whole time, example: literally every other time any actor has ever spoken it. I disagree however that they inherited all this from the recent reboot movies, because generally speaking I like the Klingons in these. The brief amount of time a D4 was on screen in into darkness almost made me yell "Yes! finally thats what a Klingon ship should look like!" Mean, sleek, manoeuvrable and looking like it might actually deserve the title "Bird of Prey".
I can see the similarities in the character design, but again it seems like the into darkness Klingon are the Discovery ones just done properly. Its like Disco looked at them and was like "Ok, that. . . but more. . . and worse. . . so much worse."

Klingons aside though I will say there's a fair bit of Disco I liked.

Right back on topic.
The second episode, some excellent concepts and ideas all rather poorly executed
Spoiler
Show
I too disliked the way that Epzo suddenly decided to be a nice guy right at the end in sharp contradiction to his entire stated philosophy as if the Dr merely going "You're wrong!" is sufficient to change someones entire worldview. I could of sworn he was going to die, in the classic move: "Here's the character you're meant to hate so its ok when we kill him". Also an epic race across a deadly planet that seems to take 10 minutes and present 3 threats (one of which they just give you a boat to overcome). Oh and the convenient "exposition painting" on the floor. But these are hardly new criticisms of a Dr Who episode.
However, Jodie continues to do an excellent job of the character and (in contrast to Pjk) I absolutely love everything about this seasons "Dr Aesthetic", clothes, screwdriver, TARDIS the lot.

Edit: Oh I just read the the next episode is going to focus upon a historical figure. . . . specifically Rosa Parks. This seams deliberately engineered to make the Daily Mail comments section froth at the mouth over "political correctness" which is ****ing brilliant and I applaud them for it. If you're going to enrage bigots merely by casting a woman, hell go all out and REALLY upset them by focusing a whole episode on a black, female civil rights activist. Wonderful.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
Antilogic
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed, 6. Apr 05, 20:33
x3tc

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by Antilogic » Mon, 15. Oct 18, 16:25

Spoiler
Show
The episode was OK.

I agree with pjknibbs, "Prometheus school of running away from things" came into my head.

The story was passable. Only "enemy" I liked was the race owner holo, who I feel was fun and well acted. The two race computing people were pretty bland. Not a fan of a story arc coming in involving the blue tooth fairies from episode one, cannot get into them as a villain at all.

Really starting to warm to Graham as a character, definitely my favorite of the supporting cast right now.

Jodie did OK. Not as good as Ep1.

Tardis is a bit meh IMO. Shall see how it goes.

matthewfarmery
Posts: 3674
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 17:49
x3

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by matthewfarmery » Mon, 15. Oct 18, 19:33

Yeah, the episode wasn't bad, not the greatest, but not bad, Jodie is certainly becoming a good Doctor, as for the TARDIS, I don't mind the new look, its had worse, and better.
=

Aye Capn
Posts: 2611
Joined: Sat, 15. Feb 03, 07:17
x3tc

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by Aye Capn » Tue, 16. Oct 18, 19:54

Antilogic wrote:
Fri, 12. Oct 18, 23:03
****ing rubbish all of it. Note how this thread is constantly assaulted by this "not at all sexist driven discussion".
It's not. You're a victim of the anthropic fallacy, or what TVTropes would describe as fantastic racism, specifically anthropocentrism.

Their species is not like yours. Whatever concept "sexism" might have in their society would bear no relation to anything we would understand, at least not without thinking it through. I recommend doing so.

User avatar
Antilogic
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed, 6. Apr 05, 20:33
x3tc

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by Antilogic » Tue, 16. Oct 18, 20:55

Aye Capn wrote:
Tue, 16. Oct 18, 19:54
Antilogic wrote:
Fri, 12. Oct 18, 23:03
****ing rubbish all of it. Note how this thread is constantly assaulted by this "not at all sexist driven discussion".
It's not. You're a victim of the anthropic fallacy, or what TVTropes would describe as fantastic racism, specifically anthropocentrism.

Their species is not like yours. Whatever concept "sexism" might have in their society would bear no relation to anything we would understand, at least not without thinking it through. I recommend doing so.
Wow. Truly enlightening. Please, regale me with more of your crap.

Actually nevermind, got a good use for one the forums new features.

Aye Capn
Posts: 2611
Joined: Sat, 15. Feb 03, 07:17
x3tc

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by Aye Capn » Wed, 17. Oct 18, 19:43

Regale you, eh? If you insist.

Ask yourself this question: was The Doctor retconned or did he regenerate into a she?

User avatar
Antilogic
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed, 6. Apr 05, 20:33
x3tc

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by Antilogic » Wed, 17. Oct 18, 20:27

Isn't the ignore feature great.

In more interesting news, behind the scenes of Jodies ear thingies! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msSdDdhA1qk

User avatar
red assassin
Posts: 4613
Joined: Sun, 15. Feb 04, 15:11
x3

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by red assassin » Thu, 18. Oct 18, 00:00

Hmm. Quite enjoyed this episode on the whole, but as others have said there were a number of annoying bits.
Spoiler
Show
I particularly enjoyed "no other life" followed immediately by a wide shot of the lake, which pretty clearly showed green vegetation on the distant shoreline. While understandable, I also liked the three suns clearly casting a single shadow.

There were a couple of slightly unsubtle references I'm not sure I liked or not as well - shortly after being rescued from floating in space by a passing ship at the last possible moment, someone said "don't panic"; while the mysterious exposition left in an underground chamber by its deceased former inhabitants ended with "they are coming".
I'm with Bishop on the aesthetics too - I think the new TARDIS is really interesting. And I want a spaceship that produces custard creams!
A still more glorious dawn awaits, not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise, a morning filled with 400 billion suns - the rising of the Milky Way

User avatar
Antilogic
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed, 6. Apr 05, 20:33
x3tc

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by Antilogic » Thu, 18. Oct 18, 02:54

I love some of the fan videos the community comes up with. Doctor Who | Incredible Change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur898NZWZ4w

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by Bishop149 » Thu, 18. Oct 18, 12:03

Aye Capn wrote:
Tue, 16. Oct 18, 19:54
Their species is not like yours. Whatever concept "sexism" might have in their society would bear no relation to anything we would understand, at least not without thinking it through. I recommend doing so.
This argument really doesn't work when the story in question is written by humans, for humans . . . . as of course all media is. Any and all characterisation is a reflection and commentary upon the human nature and society, even (perhaps especially) if that characterisation is "Look how inhuman this character is!"
In the specific case of Dr Who its doubly invalid because whilst the character is supposedly an alien this is not apparent for 99% of the time, time in which "human from the future with magic technology" would work perfectly well as a description of the Dr.
Antilogic wrote:
Thu, 18. Oct 18, 02:54
I love some of the fan videos the community comes up with. Doctor Who | Incredible Change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur898NZWZ4w
Watching that made it seem really REALLY weird that the Dr has only been a woman once . . . . I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that this was LONG overdue.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

Aye Capn
Posts: 2611
Joined: Sat, 15. Feb 03, 07:17
x3tc

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by Aye Capn » Thu, 18. Oct 18, 18:34

Bishop149 wrote:
Thu, 18. Oct 18, 12:03
Aye Capn wrote:
Tue, 16. Oct 18, 19:54
Their species is not like yours.
This argument really doesn't work when the story in question is written by humans, for humans . . . .
Wrong. Mardukans are a species written by humans, for humans which are nonetheless portrayed through the lens of their own quite alien evolutionary biology. At one point the "females" -- if you could call them that, which is itself anthropocentrism -- demand to be called "males" because of their interpretation of human sexual dimorphism. To maintain diplomatic relations the humans reprogram their translators. None of the terminology really makes sense anyway, so why not? Aliens are alien.

The Doctor's species is even more alien, if not in morphology than in evolutionary biology. Imagining that aliens who routinely change sex would have a nonsensically human evolutionary biology with equally nonsensical "gender roles" [against which our "female" doctor presumably rebels] for a species for whom monosexuality whether hetero- or homo- would be abnormal is the height of intellectual laziness.

The "rebels" against "gender roles" would be "out and proud" monosexuals and transsexuals as we humans would understand them. Yes, the dream of becoming the sex that matches your gender transforms into a nightmare once you regenerate into the "wrong" body. The "normative" standards would be bisexual and genderfluid. Would "transsexuals" as we humans would understand them commit suicide in order to get the body that matches their gender identity? The temptation would certainly be there. Imagine how a society with the fetish for order of The Doctor's would treat such "aberrations".

The Doctor makes more sense as an LGBT-positive figure than a "Feminist" one. She's not a woman; it is a bisexual genderfluid hermaphrodite.
Antilogic wrote:
Thu, 18. Oct 18, 02:54
Isn't the ignore feature great.
Self-congratulations are truly in order. To the triumph of open-minded intellectualism: Huzzah!

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Series 11 Dr Who

Post by Bishop149 » Fri, 19. Oct 18, 12:52

@Aye Capn
Ok, firstly I think you've missed my point so I will restate it, but I will also address those you make about the fictional positioning of aliens later.
If you cast a woman where you previously cast a man it is IMPOSSIBLE not to be simultaneously make a statement regarding gender equality . . . . whether you want to or not, the back story or species of the character in question is completely irrelevant. I suppose if the gender of the actor was completely masked by prosthetics / SFX etc and if it's just a minor character whose casting received no press, then prehaps no one would notice and you'd get away with it, but a lead role? Forget it.
Taking this further even if you cast a gay man into the role of a straight man, who was previously played by a straight man you would STILL be making a statement as long as the audience knows that's what you did.
The fiction does not exist in a separate universe isolated from that of the audience, and thus can not be judged in such isolation in anything other than a purely academic manner.
Nor can you accuse an audiences perception as being "wrong" based purely upon the fiction, fundamentally because Jodie Whittaker is NOT fictional.
BTW I do also think your interpretation of this change in Dr as LGBTQ positive is a good one, I just also think the feminist one you dismiss on the basis of the fiction is equally as valid for the reasons I explain above.

Right, fictional positioning of aliens.
Your analysis of how all these "aliens" are immediately likened to and paralleled with human characteristics is exactly the issue, even (especially) if the point being made is that doing this is incorrect.
It is near impossible for a human to write a character and avoid this, even the very act of saying "I will write something unlike a human" implies that you will bring your own ideas of "what humans are like" into the process.
Your example is a case in point, your aliens object to being misgendered. . . . . and then align themselves with the other pole of the human gender binary. Oh how very alien, I don't think.
A more "alien" response would be; "What the hell is gender?" and once it's explained "That's stupid why the hell do you do that?!". But then I wrote that and therefore it reflects MY opinions on the issue. See how that works?
We literally can't not do this, we do it in our fiction, we'd do it if we ever met an extraterrestrial alien, and we do it on a daily basis with the aliens we happen to share our planet with . . . many of which are DRAMATICALLY different to us in regard to things like sex and associated behaviours.

So I said "near impossible" earlier and I will just qualify that, I have read a few short stories which I think did a pretty decent job of truly imagining an alien perspective . . . . and guess what, those stories were near nonsensical and INCREDIBLY hard to read. By being moderately successful in creating a truly alien perspective the author simultaneously rendered their story almost incomprehensible to me, a human reader. Its an impressive literary feat but does not make for good or popular fiction.

Edit: I'll actually expand this a little further. . . . biologically speaking we can draw inspiration for aliens from other species on our planet. We can say "Oh these aliens are haplodiploid and therefore eusocial, they're basically like bees", however when it comes to sapience until recently we had NO source to draw on other than humanity. So if we want to depict a sapient alien it then becomes "What if like bees that thought like humans" or "What would eusocial humans look like?". Its interesting to note that we have now managed to meaningfully communicate complex ideas with a sapient non-humans, (great apes via sign language) and despite being so very close to us in evolutionary terms some very significant cognitive differences were found. They don't "think" like us. More limited communication has been achieved with dolphins but primary reason the communication is so limited is because these differences appear much much greater . . . but also harder to pin down due to the limited communication, its a little catch 22.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”