Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorOn Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 6:55:22 PM UTC-5, The True
Post by The True DoctorOn Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 5:38:19 PM UTC-5, The True
there, but we never saw the Dalek being melted - just a later
artist's interpretation of what happened (though said artist
had a pretty good idea what a Dalek looked like).
Yet the Dalek metal case is seen completely melting,
Post by The True Doctorand like the Dalek kindly decides to stay in place without firing
The weapon has a minimum range since it juts out of the body.
Not much a Dalek can do except roll away (or fly) if it's
surrounded closer than that.
What happened to it's electric shock mechanism?
What electric shock mechanism? The only time I can recall a
Dalek
The one that killed everyone that touched the Dalek in 2012,
except Rose because she was a time traveler.
Don't remember that at all.
It was right at the start of the episode. One of Vanwhatshisname's men
was electrocuted when he touched the Dalek, and then he sent Rose to do
the same thing.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorWhat happened to it
Post by The True Doctorspinning and floating in the air?
What would that accomplish? In any case, while we know the
weapon was
Because then they could only shoot at it with bows and arrows, and
the Daleks would be totally stupid if they designed a blaster that
had less range than an arrow fired up into the air.
They could shoot it from below, right up into the exposed
exhausts...
Not if it was out of range. Arrows don't travel very far.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True Doctorintact and charged because Lynne was able to use it without the
Dalek attached, we don't know what state the flight engines were
in - we didn't see those until the Dalek was rebuilt. They could
plausibly have malfunctioned, run out of power, or been damaged
with a lucky hit that prevented it from escaping.
Since they obviously had power and worked when the Dalek was
rebuilt as did the weapon, and the national grid wouldn't have
been able to recharge either of them--like how much power do you
need to anti-gravity these days?--they were obviously still working
back in the 9th century.
My point is that anything could have been repaired when the Dalek is
being rebuilt.
With what? Did the Dalek get women archaeologist to build a sonic dildo
too? Did she have access to a Dalek chip fabrication plant too?
The only thing we know was still functional after the
Post by p***@conservation.orgDalek was dismantled is the gun - it could have had a damaged
eyestalk or engines that were repaired with the patch-up job.
Repaired with what? Have you ever tried repairing modern electronic
equipment? It's virtually impossible without specialized tools,
software, and spare parts from the original manufacturers.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorAnd an arrow isn't going to do any damage to an armour plated
Dalek case.
In Hartnell's era people were able to pick up and dismantle Daleks
by hand - an arrow's probably dangerous enough.
No it isn't. An arrow can't dismantle a Dalek casing and can't penetrate
armour plating.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorPost by The True DoctorThe one sent out was from sub-Saharan African. Where did he
come from?
Sub-Saharan Africa? Didn't the episode say that armies came from
a wide area to attack the Dalek?
Given that sub-Saharan Africa didn't posses any ships at the time,
or even steal weapons,
Why would they need to steal any weapons? Also, why would they need
You think they fought the Dalek with wooden spears and bows and arrows?
They would have all been massacred.
Post by p***@conservation.orgships any more sophisticated than the ones they possessed back in
Africa?
They didn't posses any ships at all. ZILCH!
Most travel in that period was overland, and if they were
Post by p***@conservation.orgallied with mainlanders they could have used their ships.
Oh so they walked from Africa across the Mediterranean sea to Spain and
then walked across the English Channel? Yer, right.
Post by p***@conservation.orglet alone armour, how did they get there and what
Post by The True Doctoruse would they have been? How come there are no traces of them today?
a) Because it didn't happen since there was no Dalek to fight. That
doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.
The Dalek would have massacred millions and year no evidence of bodies
or burials or camp sites or human waste even exists.
Post by p***@conservation.orgb) We know hardly anything about population movements to and from
the UK in this or earlier periods. We do know that far earlier
Oh yes we bloody well do. Read Gildas, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the
Irish Chronicles, Bede, and there's lots of other texts to supplement
them too.
Post by p***@conservation.orgpeople were moving in from the continent (such as Stonehenge builders
from the mainland) and we know that many Anglo-Saxon burial goods
were manufactured in mainland Europe (and possibly Egypt, as one
Sutton Hoo artefact may be Coptic) and in a small number of cases
from Asia (eastern Byzantine).
What we know is that there were no sub-Saharan Africans that set foot in
Britain at the time, or at any time before the slave trade. Historical
revisionism is racism.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorAnd how the hell would they have been gathered in time? Did king
Alfred telephone the king of; were there even any sub-Saharan
African states beyond isolated tribes, in existence at the time,
that even had large enough armies or could even unify their
people? Just how stupid does Chibnall think the audience is?
Did you read the timeline I helpfully provided in another threat?
The Africans had states, they reached the Iron Age 4-6 centuries
later than the Europeans (i.e. it had been established for about a
milennium by the 9th Century), and they had steel (though not
hardened steel).
There was no iron smelting in West sub-Saharan Africa until after 1000 AD.
Post by p***@conservation.orgIt wasn't until well into the Middle Ages that European cultures
developed significantly more advanced technology and more
centralised forms of government than those in sub-Saharan Africa and
You are talking absolute crap. Europeans developed complex civilization
since 2000 BC and it has been continuous ever since. The Egyptians
developed it 1000 years earlier but this had nothing to do with
sub-Saharan Africa which had no complex civilization whatsoever until
medieval times and militarily was millennia behind Europe.
Post by p***@conservation.orgthe main technological advance that allowed the Europeans to become
dominant - the caravel - was both much later and not relevant to
armies' performance in the field.
The caravel was an ocean going ship and had no relevance to anything
except the re-discovery of the Americans. What gave Europeans the
advantage over Egypt and Mesopotamia was was the use of Bronze and then
Iron, by around 2000 BC, when the Egyptians were still using copper. By
about 700 BC Europe had surpassed Egypt, Mesopotamia, and even Asia. The
caravel wasn't what allowed Europeans to conquer north and south
America, it was the gun, and a gun used by a Dalek would have made mince
meat of knights in shining armour.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorPost by The True DoctorDon't say Roman times because there were no sub-Saharan
Africans that formed part of the Roman empire. The only time
Africans set foot in England was at the time of Gildas where
the king of the Moors (or some other Semitic origin northern
Africans) formed part of an invasion force of Britain and
Ireland.
Um, what? There were no Moors in Europe in the 6th Century, and
even if there had been and they'd visited Britain that by itself
would demonstrate that it's possible for African armies could
have reached the island.
This was a northern African army composed of mainly Semitic
peoples, controlled as a client state of the Byzantine empire.
Nope, the Byzantines never invaded Britain either. Have you been
reading some fantasy like Geoffrey of Monmouth again and imagining
that it represents reality? If you like that sort of historical
fiction might I recommend Harry Harrison's Hammer and the Cross?
It's marginally more plausible.
You are totally deranged and don't have the remotest clue about history.
After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the island of Ireland
remained a client state of the Byzantines until around 1200 AD. Northern
Africa was composed of client states of the Byzantines until the time of
the Muslims in 650 BC when it was taken over by the Arabs.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorHere's another secret, Aggy: There was no Dalek in 9th Century
England. If there had been, and it had required overseas allies
to defeat, it's entirely internally consistent to imagine
foreign armies in Britain when none existed in reality.
No it isn't. How did they get there by sea, since obviously they
didn't swim?
How did anyone get to the island by sea?
Yes, how did they get there by sea without swimming? They would have
needed ships, and they didn't have any.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorPost by The True DoctorPost by The True DoctorUnfortunately for us, the woman entrusted with taking the
1/3 portion of Dalek meat to Sheffield is shot dead before
she can bury it like the others.
Why would anyone in their right mind trust such a task to a
feeble woman in the first place? Why didn't they just let
thing burn on the Pyre?
Misogyny is the best you've got, Aggy? More relevantly, why did they
Chibnall was misandristic against single fathers. Why haven't
you said anything about that?
Because he wasn't and misandristic still isn't a word? While
calling
Misandristic is a word and you know exactly what it means. Why does
Chibnall have to portray men as unfit parents?
What about Ryan's mother? I don't know if we were ever told where she is/was.
She died.
Post by p***@conservation.orgGay people are even complaining about
Post by The True Doctorthe episode being homophobic because Chibnall decided to make one
of the security guards gay and then had the Dalek exterminate him
after revealing that he was gay.
That sounds like nonsense.
It's a fact.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/8106801/doctor-who-homophobic-killing-off-gay-character/
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorPost by The True Doctortrust any of these to single individuals rather than groups
- and why carry the pieces away that far in any case? It's
not as though anyone was going to be using UV lights to
bring them together in the 9th Century, and if it was chopped
up it would otherwise make no difference if the bits were
2,000 miles from each other or 2.
You should be asking the question, since when can a dead
life-form that was split into three pieces teleport and then
bring itself back to life?
No I shouldn't, for the simple reason that it doesn't make any
sense for it to have survived for 1,100 years however many
pieces it's cut into. If you can buy one part of that, why not
the other?
I'm not buying any of it. Which part of it contained its brain?
How did the others teleport without a brain? How did they even
communicate?
Space magic, of course. It's a millennium-old alien that manages to
reassemble itself through some sort of internal teleporter - it's
not intended to be over-analysed.
Why would it have three teleporters built into it? If there was only one
of them how did it locate the other parts. What kept all the parts
alive? Chibnall shat out absolute crap in viewers faces. It's his job as
a writer to explain what he wrote, not cut it irrelevant mind numbing
soap opera.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True Doctorcolleagues (hence the talk of the office party - you don't bring
part-time assistants to office parties), so it seems as
reasonable an
Yes you do. Even interns get to attend office parties.
Scientists don't have their field assistants in the office in the
first place. Only people who work in a building tend to be invited
to Christmas parties.
Twaddle. The field assistant would have been employed by the same
institution as the archaeologist, so would have been invited to the
office party.
Post by p***@conservation.orgIn any case why are you imagining Lynne was in charge? Mitch thanks
her for coming in on her day off and he's the one with the
background knowledge of the Dalek 'myth' and who apparently found the
body. It seems he was leading the dig.
He obviously needed instruction and explanation. And the Dalek myth was
only mentioned in the last 10 minutes, because Chibnall doesn't have a
fucking clue how to do exposition.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorPost by The True DoctorIt was 10 minutes of mind numbing soap opera. Indiana Jones
would have been saving the female archaeologist, like in
Raiders and Crusade. That's how you portray a male protagonist
without being sexist and misandristic.
Indiana Jones is sexist, but that's the point - the entire idea of
Indiana Jones is not sexist. You are sexist in thinking so.
That isn't how it works, Aggy. Even if Indiana Jones weren't sexist,
it isn't somehow magically sexist to suggest that it is.
Indiana Jones was not sexist. If you think he was it is up to you the
one making the claim of sexism to provide proof.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorIndiana Jones was to recreate the adventure stories of the
1920s, and
H. Rider Haggard was earlier than that.
Indiana Jones was based on films of his and related work, whose
heyday was the '20s and '30s, not on the source novels.
Indiana Jones was based by George Lucas on the source novels of Haggard
and Stevenson just like Star Wars was based on the source novels of E.
E. Smith and Edgar Rice Burroughs and the Flash Gordon comic strips. The
movies of the 20s, 30s, and 40s were secondary sources.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True Doctorthere was none of this modern rubbish about imposing modern
values on older storytelling. It was actually possible to
appreciate things for what they were in context without getting
up in arms about political undertones - though you wouldn't
appreciate that since you spend your life just looking for
political undertones to get upset about, especially ones that
aren't actually there.
Oh you mean like the viewers who found Resolution to be
homophobic?
You, apparently, so yes.
So you think it's ok for Chibnall to be homophobic then?
Post by p***@conservation.orgThe
Post by The True Doctorentire PC agenda is based on illogical and irrational ideology
which is why it has to be condemned and routed out.
As I've pointed out multiple times, you have exactly the same
mindset as your imagined 'PC agenda' - trying to find an excuse to
be offended about everything, however inoffensive, and trying to
impose an imagined moral absolute onto work produced in a completely
different context where that judgment is wholly inappropriate.
So naturally I should condemn you and root you out.
You are deranged. Chibnall's work is racist, sexist, and homophobic
because of the disgusting PC agenda he is trying to impose on the
viewers. Had he not tried to impose this disgusting agenda then he
wouldn't have offended anyone or alienated most of the fanbase.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorNot that sexism was particularly out of the ordinary then - this
was still the era of James Bond close to its height, of
screaming female companions in Dr Who, and only a few years on
from the Carry Ons.
And that was all good and healthy, and it made people feel
included and taught them to think rationally and logically.
If the Carry Ons were a formative influence in teaching you to think
rationally and logically, I think we've discovered where your warped
understanding of 'reason' and 'logic' comes from.
The Carry On films were all logically though out and will be remembered
as classics, unlike the crap produced by Chibnall.
Post by p***@conservation.orgSee, this is where both you and your imagined foes with the 'PC
agenda' are falling into the same mindset and making the same
mistake.
You are deluding yourself.
Post by p***@conservation.orgThe "PC lobby" cries "sexist" about something like the Carry Ons and
insists that therefore it is to be condemned puritanically and can't
be enjoyed for what it is for fear of endorsing a regressive
attitude.
You spout gibberish about something like Dr Who and claim that
therefore it is to be condemned puritanically for fear that enjoying
something that treats women or black people vaguely realistically
would threaten your misogynistic and racist world view.
It doesn't treat women and black people realistically. It thinks that
ticks boxes solves the underlying problems, when it fact it makes them
worse, and thereby insults everyone's intelligence including black
people and women, and now Chibnall by his box ticking is insulting
homosexual. The man is a bigoted fool.
The Carry On films on the other hand were not made to tick boxes on
someones political agenda. They were made to entertain. Ticking boxes to
fill racist, sexist, and homosexual quotas isn't entertainment and
serves no one.
Post by p***@conservation.orgA man was stronger than a
Post by The True Doctorwoman and therefore it was right for him to protect her. A woman
was weaker than a man and therefore it was logically for her to
scream for help.
Where did I say this had anything to do with physical threats?
Relatively speaking the strength differences between human sexes are
fairly trivial - against other humans in a combat situation a woman
will struggle against male opponents when both are unarmed, but that
has nothing to do with screaming at monsters or the like. A man
isn't going to be any better at defeating a Cyberman in physical
combat than a woman - conversely a smaller monster is as easy for a
woman to defeat in a physical encounter as a man.
A woman has the intelligence to scream for help when she is confronted
by a threat. A man does not. Classic Doctor Who reflected reality and
human psychology. Chibnall's PC crap does not and that's why it's vile
and repulsive.
Post by p***@conservation.orgAnd once weapons come into the equation that equalise men and women,
either because they're being attacked at range where physical
strength is not an issue or because the human character is armed
with a ranged weapon, that becomes completely irrelevant.
A man can fire a bigger bow over a longer range than a woman, and a man
can draw a heavier and more powerful gun faster and hold it stiller for
the next shot.
The playing field only becomes even when you start to pay others who are
most qualified to do your dirty work for you.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorPost by The True DoctorPost by The True DoctorThe woman archaeologist
Alternative phrases you can use here are the character's
name, Lynne,
Her name wasn't even mentioned until 10 minutes before the
end.
Pretty sure it was mentioned right at the start by the man
archaeologist (Mitch).
No. We got his name at the start, not hers.
Fairly sure he said 'Hi Lynne' when she was introduced, but at the
very least he mentioned her name when the Doctor showed up. That was
far earlier than 10 minutes from the end.
Whittaker does noting in this episode until 10 minutes before the end,
just like in every episode.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorIn Dalek it used the technology of an advanced base against the
soldiers, there weren't many soldiers, and they were in narrow
corridors.
Daleks have been beaten with umbrellas in Dr Who before now -
enough people getting close to them with swords would be
sufficient, I'd
No it wouldn't. The Dalek would never have let anyone get close to
it. This one was supposed to be more powerful than any other
Daleks we've seen before.
It can still be heavily outnumbered. We've never seen more than a
handful of people in combat with a Dalek at once because Dr Who
doesn't spend that much on extras.
The Dalek doesn't care if it's outnumbered. All it has to do is fly to
safety.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True Doctorimagine. Think how often Daleks are defeated by people damaging
the eye-stalk.
Was it shown to have a damaged eye stalk? It was working fine when
it was rebuilt.
Operative phrase: "When it was rebuilt".
How was it rebuilt if it was damaged? Do you know of any stores that
sell space Dalek eye stalks?
Post by p***@conservation.orgWhy didn't Chibnall show how the Dalek was actually
Post by The True Doctordefeated given how powerful it was,
Because it wasn't relevant to the story and he wanted to save the
It was the most relevant part of the story, and the only thing that
would have provided the elements of the a story.
Post by p***@conservation.orgactual showing of an encased Dalek until late in the episode.
He wanted to write mind numbing soap opera because he doesn't have a
clue how to write exposition.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorPost by The True Doctorthe new torso missiles probably help). I wonder how it was
powered while not attached to the Dalek.
Post by The True DoctorSo it's a Dalek, then. Everyone knew it was a fucking Dalek
before the episode even started, and worked out the entire
plot. What does Chibnall thinks he's don't by pretending
that these some kind of mystery.
Think back to 2005. There was a whole buildup to the reveal
of the mystery monster ... in an episode called "Dalek".
It's pretty much a
The build up amounted to about 3 minutes before the titles.
Everyone knew what it was. The question was, was it still
alive.
The buildup in the episode continued longer than that, until Adam
described it as a pepperpot just before the Doctor's encounter
with it. The question, as here, was 'when will the reveal come
and what will the Doctor's reaction be?'. It remains one of the
best monster reveals in Dr Who despite not being at all
unexpected.
What? Everyone was expecting it from the very beginning. It was terrible.
I meant the reveal in Dalek was one of the best in Dr Who, not this
episode. Of course everyone was expecting it - that's precisely my
The reveal in Dalek occurred in the first 10 minutes, not the last 10.
Post by p***@conservation.orgpoint. It's the way it happens and when that makes the reveal work,
not learning what the monster is. We know there will always be a
monster, and usually when it's a returning one we know which one it
is well in advance because that's how the BBC does its advertising.
The key is timing and if you know what the monster is then the reveal
needs to be at the start.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorYou already complained, not unjustifiably, that this episode
tries to clone Dalek - so why are you now claiming that it's
different?
It was badly written rubbish compared to Dalek,
Dalek was very good. It's not a slight on this episode that it's not
as good - and it does something novel with the Dalek that even that
episode didn't do despite the similarity of the premise.
JNT already did the Dalek out of its casing in Resurrection of the
Daleks. It was only worth about 5 minutes. A far bigger story surrounded
it, and Chibnall inability to tell stories by writing exposition is why
he was left writing 50 minutes of soap opera.
Post by p***@conservation.orgChibnall has totally run out of ideas and it's taken him
Post by The True Doctorfar less time to run out of them than Moffat did.
Moffatt was redoing The Empty Child on an annual basis or more
frequently ever since he took over. He ran out of ideas after Blink,
before he ever took control of the show.
Chibnall never had any ideas to begin with. He doesn't have a clue how
to write science fiction.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorPost by The True DoctorThe convention with Dalek stories is that you know it's the
Daleks from the start, so there's no mystery about what they
are and therefore the writer doesn't do mystery, they do
threat, and there wasn't any kind of threat to Whittaker in
this episode, just like she has never been under any real
threat in any of the others she's been in.
How often were Matt Smith or Peter Capaldi ever at any apparent
risk to their lives? That's something that's largely been lost
from Dr Who.
Whittaker has never been at any apparent risk ever.
No. My point was that that's also the case for other recent Doctors.
It's the way the stories are now written.
Bad writing is not justification for bad writing, and there has been
more of it under Whittaker than any other Doctor including McCoy.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorPost by The True DoctorThere were already soldiers that got involved, so why couldn't
they have been UNIT? The kolos Chibnall could not resist doing
politics.
For that scene to work the soldiers needed not to know what a
Dalek was. Also, the UNIT connection was that the Doctor knows
Kate Stewart, and either they didn't want to bring the actress
back for the special or they decided they wanted the Doctor not
to have her or UNIT's support for the plot. So why not do it
this way instead of come up with something about her being stuck
in South America or whatever?
So instead Chibnall comes out with political crap against Brexit
which is far worse.
Why? It was fairly funny and it's not as though anyone whose
opinions are worth caring about gets upset about digs at Brexit. The
entire thing is farcical in both concept and execution - if anything
making jokes about it is just too easy a target.
It has nothing to do with the plot and took away all hope Chibnall ever
had to creating any kind of tension.
Post by p***@conservation.orgKate Steward didn't even need to be mentioned. The never
Post by The True Doctorneeded her in the Sontaran Poison Sky story.
She was a Moffatt creation - the character hadn't been introduced in
The Poison Sky and the then-Doctor had no established relationship
with the UNIT of the 21st Century. The Doctor hadn't worked with
anyone from UNIT since the '80s at that point.
But still The Poison Sky featured UNIT and so did AOL/WW3.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorShe was tracking the Dalek on the TARDIS console.
Since when has the TARDIS been able to track Daleks by their DNA?
Since it's needed to for plot purposes, of course. When has the
Oh, you mean because of bad writing and Chibnall's inability to write
exposition.
Post by p***@conservation.orgDoctor previously had a sample of the specific Dalek he/she's
tracking to use?
Planet of the Daleks. Why didn't he just go back to his TARDIS and
materialize inside the Dalek city? Because there wouldn't have been plot!
Post by p***@conservation.orgIt was
Once again, it's Dr Who. If you're expecting it to be anything else
you've been watching the wrong series for decades.
The classic series was not tosh like this one is.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorPost by The True DoctorYou call that steaming pile a garbage a storyline?
Whatever you think of its quality it was undeniably a storyline.
Dalek gets chopped up, chopped up Dalek gets excavated and
reawoken, reassembled Dalek tries to communicate to its fleet.
Doctor and co. work out what it's up to and stop it.
There, storyline.
No. How can a chopped up Dalek teleport it self and then glue
itself back together again?
Doesn't matter as far as the storyline's concerned. It can and
that's what matters.
It's not a story if everything happens by magic because the shit writer
is incapable of writing exposition.
Post by p***@conservation.orgScientifically explaining how that can possibly
Post by The True Doctorhappen in a manner that does not involve what amounts to magic is a
storyline.
No, that's not a storyline. It doesn't progress the plot to invent
exposition to explain the backstory.
Exposition is how science fiction works, otherwise you have no plot
crappy science that no one will ever suspend their disbelief over.
Post by p***@conservation.orgIn other words have people discover the parts in a state of
Post by The True Doctorundecaying preservation, transport them to one place, and then
stitch them back together and reanimate them, like Frankenstein's
monster.
Or you can have a dormant Dalek being passed between collectors for
years until it gets reactivated by contact with the Doctor in van
It was activated by contact with Rose, and it had infinitely more
credibility than Chibnall crap fest.
Post by p***@conservation.orgStatten's lab. Yes, the Dalek-in-pieces version is a lot harder to
swallow but that does nothing to affect the actual storyline or the
underlying concept: Dormant Dalek is present on Earth, something
reactivates it, Dalek goes on the rampage.
That not the story in science fiction terms. The story is how a Dalek
separated into 3 pieces and buried underground can survive 1100 years
and then teleport and stitch itself back together again, without
resorting to magic.
Post by p***@conservation.orgIt's exactly the same storyline in both Dalek and Resolution - the
No. Dalek explains how the Dalek survived and leaves no unanswered
questions, so provides an actual story, with a start, a middle, and end.
Chibnall's crap fest doesn't. It's incomplete and unfinished so is not a
story.
Post by p***@conservation.orgfact that Dalek gives a more sensible backstory is neither here nor
there.
Wrong. RTD himself said that to be a writer you have to complete what
you are writing, and that means tying up all lose ends. Chibnall has
never done that.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorThat's how you do science fiction, not a fucking moronic 50 minute
long irrelevant soap opera about Ryan's dad returning home.
Still only about three scenes however much you claim it was '50 minutes long'.
The soap opera amounted to 50 minutes.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorPost by The True DoctorPost by The True DoctorAfter hearing about how the Dalek was originally
destroyed--like this was actually recorded as history,
then how come no one else have even heard of it?--
How come no one else has even heard of Daleks? Pretty sure
they've been a significant part of events on Earth that
haven't been erased from everyone's memory.
You have the fools RTD and Moffat to thank for that stupidity.
So why complain about Chibnall? I keep pointing out Moffatt's stuff was the problem.
Chibnall didn't fix it but made it worse.
Essentially completely disregarding the Moffatt era and writing a
story about a Dalek that isn't dependent on whatever magic powers
Moffatt gave them, on Moffatt's UNIT characters, or on the weirdly
convoluted alien invasions that everyone on Earth is by now aware of
is a definite improvement in my book. It lets Chibnall tell a
straightforward Dalek story without caring about obscure continuity
while Moffatt was all fanwank and self-congratulatory reuse of his
own inventions from start to finish.
Chibnall's episode was not a story. It was mind numbing soap opera with
a Dalek as a background distraction. Moffat for all his failing is a far
better writer than Chibnall ever will be.
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorHe's writing a Dr Who plot. If you want credibility you've been
watching the wrong series since Hartnell left.
Doctor Who plots were perfectly credible and well written before
the Colin Bakers second series, and even the Sylvester McCoy era
was far better written than anything Chibnall has shat out in the
past series.
I'll just leave this here.
http://youtu.be/8VvZ-VaeB5g
There's a reason the new Who Honest Trailer ends with this
sequence...
And your point is what?
Post by p***@conservation.orgPost by The True DoctorNot bad given how different viewing figures would be between
Christmas and New Year.
And yet David Tennant manged to get 10 million viewers on New
Year's Day, but Whittaker can barely reach half of that.
Hardly a fair comparison and you know it. That was at the height of
Dr Who's popularity, Tennant was easily the most popular Doctor of
the modern era, and that episode was part of the same story as the
Christmas episode so people were tuning in to see how it concluded.
Oh, but if you read the BBC's pre-written reviews, Whittaker is the
height of Doctor Who's popularity, with 10.9 million viewers. Where have
they all gone? Tennant lasted 4 years and gained viewers. Whittaker's
lost them all in 10 episodes, with the New Year's crap fest coming less
than a month after the previous story and filmed as part of the same
series, continuing the story of Ryan's dad. LOLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!