[TV] Doctor Who

[apepi]

Yes, if you parallel this to the '9th' Doctor there's confusion and anger. Did he end the time war and stop billions of deaths/rebirths/deaths and unimaginable suffering? Yes, but at what terrible (at the time) costs?

The Doctor right now is kindof PTSD and is trying to deal. It's like I told my friend. You're NOT supposed to like this Doctor like Tennet or Smith. You're supposed to question him. He's in a messed up place and is mentally in distress. That's why there are so many references to him being messed up. It's the same Doctor yes, but he's in a very different place than we've seen him before and that's the idea.

- - - Updated - - -



They show the head later, but we really don't need that kind of thing right now and the self-censorship by the BBC is appropriate.

Edit: If you ever actually watched on a video of a beheading (and I totally recommend you don't) then you realize it's much more awful than you would imagine.

He seems much more like the 9th doctor to be in this regard.

We don't need this right now? When is the perfect time to show a beheading to someone? Either it is fine to show or it is not.

A beheading is supposed to be awful, isn't that the point of them?

[Khime]

We don't need this right now? When is the perfect time to show a beheading to someone? Either it is fine to show or it is not.

A beheading is supposed to be awful, isn't that the point of them?

No, there are times when it's appropriate, and times when it isn't. It's called discretion and tact. A beheading is supposed to be awful, but it's supposed to also be abstractly awful. Like seeing an alien burst out of somebody's chest, it's a shocking and horrible thing, but you don't expect it to happen to the little old lady down the street. And when it does, it changes the context for when you see it in a work of fiction. It's no longer just shocking, it's now a trigger. "That poor woman on the news in London and those journalists overseas got decapitated by madmen and fanatics, but at least I can escape the news for a while and watch Doctor Who and forget how horrible the real world is and OH MY GOD WHY?!"

It's basically the same reasoning that led to planned television screenings of films and fictional programs where terrorism, plane crashes, bombs, or other related disasters were the primary subject being postponed or canceled just after the 9/11 attacks in America. It doesn't matter that this Doctor Who episode was filmed months ago; showing such a scene right now would be seen at best as insensitive, and at worst as trying to capitalize on real world deaths to sensationalize the show.

[Immitis]

And it's a burden he thought he was done with. He stayed on Trenzalore for centuries, knowing he would never leave, knowing this was how his story would end, knowing he would die, and that it was finally over. He'd found Gallifrey, but it would never return; he would never become the Curator of a museum. He came to terms with it, and resigned himself to it: "Yes, I'm dying. You've been trying to kill me for centuries, and here I am, dying of old age. If you want something done, do it yourself. You still can't work up the courage to shoot me, can you? You're still worried I've got something up my sleeve. Well, you knock yourselves out, boys. I've got nothing this time." He'd finally given up, and was prepared to die.

And then suddenly, a new lease on life. I'm sure it came with some amount of joy, but also some amount of fear, and dread, and quite possibly anger - he's being pulled back into the thick of things just as he thought it was finally over, just as he would finally be able to rest in peace. No wonder he's confused, and a bit angry to boot.

"An ancient creature, drenched in the blood of the innocent. Drifting in space through an endless, shifting maze. For such a creature, death would be a gift."

- - - Updated - - -

He seems much more like the 9th doctor to be in this regard.

We don't need this right now? When is the perfect time to show a beheading to someone? Either it is fine to show or it is not.

A beheading is supposed to be awful, isn't that the point of them?

game of thrones is a much different type of show than doctor who.

a better comparison would probably be the beheading of buckbeak in prisoner of azkaban where it wasnt shown explicitly but implied heavily.

- - - Updated - - -

[apepi]

No, there are times when it's appropriate, and times when it isn't. It's called discretion and tact. A beheading is supposed to be awful, but it's supposed to also be abstractly awful. Like seeing an alien burst out of somebody's chest, it's a shocking and horrible thing, but you don't expect it to happen to the little old lady down the street. And when it does, it changes the context for when you see it in a work of fiction. It's no longer just shocking, it's now a trigger. "That poor woman on the news in London and those journalists overseas got decapitated by madmen and fanatics, but at least I can escape the news for a while and watch Doctor Who and forget how horrible the real world is and OH MY GOD WHY?!"

It's basically the same reasoning that led to planned television screenings of films and fictional programs where terrorism, plane crashes, bombs, or other related disasters were the primary subject being postponed or canceled just after the 9/11 attacks in America. It doesn't matter that this Doctor Who episode was filmed months ago; showing such a scene right now would be seen at best as insensitive, and at worst as trying to capitalize on real world deaths to sensationalize the show.

I disagree. As long as Dr. Who shows the severity of the act, I don't see anything wrong with it. The act is horrible, but we should not hide because of it.

[Khime]

I disagree. As long as Dr. Who shows the severity of the act, I don't see anything wrong with it. The act is horrible, but we should not hide because of it.

It's not hiding, it's removing a scene from a children's show because of the real world implications of it, implications that were not intended nor wanted by the writers of the show at the time it was originally conceived, written, or filmed. Leaving that scene in would more severely change the story the writers wanted to tell than removing it. If it was originally put in to display the savagery of a specific character, for example, it would now be seen as making light of real world tragedy. If the king's minstrel hung himself because he was depressed despite making everyone laugh, they'd probably have removed that scene too.

[apepi]

It's not hiding, it's removing a scene from a children's show because of the real world implications of it, implications that were not intended nor wanted by the writers of the show at the time it was originally conceived, written, or filmed. Leaving that scene in would more severely change the story the writers wanted to tell than removing it. If it was originally put in to display the savagery of a specific character, for example, it would now be seen as making light of real world tragedy. If the king's minstrel hung himself because he was depressed despite making everyone laugh, they'd probably have removed that scene too.

I would not call doctor who a children's show. How would it make light of it? As long as they are not making fun of it, it should be fine.

[Elim Garak]

I would not call doctor who a children's show.

It's a family show, therefore children safe. It is certainly not an adult show.

[prwraith]

I do like how the doctor isn't as cocksure as he used to be. His moment of brilliance backfired and ended in ruin because he's not even sure of himself yet, let alone saving other people.

[Deleted]

Hello, not to be annoying or anything, I did read some pages before posting.... but I just wondered what everyone's opinion is on the current season.

When I saw this new season start I was loving it. The new actor did great. What I got from the first episode was this "The doctor got a regeneration that never should've happened, it somehow "destroyed" him somewhat, being all unclear and forgetful, having evil influence ("i nearly cried when I saw he stole the cloak of the homeless dude"), not knowing who he is anymore."

It all seemed such a perfect entry for an presumably "last" doctor (inb4 timey wimey wibbley wobbly).

But why, WHY did they go into the second episode with him being "hurp durp im the doctor and i know it again!". The feeling of the intro episode was lost. Other than the quote "Am I a good man" it just was an episode saying "hey we missed the daleks, lets put them in". Not to mention the fact that he saved Gallifrey in the 50th anniversary special. SO MANY stories that they could've gone ride the hypetrain on, and I'd have been perfectly fine with that.

I don't know what this "lady of heaven" is going to do. Where it's gonna go. I'll need to see what the next episode brings. But somehow, I'm let down so far by such an epic 50th anniversary episode, christmas episode, and intro of a new doctor episode.

Maybe someone can clarify what I'm missing thats actually so great behind the scenes? It's easy to miss something in this series, just wondering if this seriously is the hill we're going to roll down.

I'm 20 years old. My mother watched Doctor Who when she was a kid and has the fond memories, my grandmother also watched it with her. Together we've seen everything Doctor Who has ever released, as it was released. I watched the premiere of the first episode with Eccleston when they brought it back in 2005, and remember how good they were.

I've stopped watching Doctor Who all together now, because what is being put out as of this and the last season at least, is total sh*te. The reason why the original Doctor Who worked and was such a success, was that it took itself seriously (Eccle, Tennant, even the first series with Matt Smith). It started getting silly with the poor writing on the series finale with that Pandora's box episode, and then Moffat destroyed his own Weeping Angels by overdoing them completely, and allowing them to move while seen. At the point of last season, it's all bad. The scripts are AWFUL, the pacing is pathetic, everything is cheesy, most stuff doesn't make any sense by the shows own self-imposed traditional rules. No logic (why didn't Clara just keep running, or breathe when she got past the robots?), plot inconsistencies everywhere. "Good" Daleks, really terrible characters/actors (Madame Vastra needs to be canned, ASAP. Bad actress playing a badly written cheesefest character, meanwhile Moffat sends unneeded lesbian sexual overtones to kids), the only funny or entertaining part in the whole episode was when Clara got hit in the face with the newspaper.

TL;DR = Moffat is destroying Doctor Who, and my family (long-term fans of the show) have stopped watching it altogether. And it really upsets me, because this man is destroying something that I love.

[Khime]

I would not call doctor who a children's show.

The head writer and producer disagrees.

How would it make light of it? As long as they are not making fun of it, it should be fine.

You don't have to be 'making fun of it' to set people off. If a real world tragedy happens, drawing attention to it as a form of 'entertainment' is simply in poor taste, disrespectful and insensitive, at least in western civilization (other cultures might see it differently, I suppose). Plus, I'm pretty sure that the BBC want to avoid having something like ‘Sleepy Hollow’ Marketers Sorry for ‘National Beheading Day’ Stunt plopped on their lap.

[Immitis]

i dont know how anyone can say with a straight face that tennants era was in anyway more serious or better written then smiths era.

do we really need to bring up magical tinkerbell powers from series 3?

or the abzorbaloff episode (WRITTEN BY RTD HIMSELF) where a dude implies he has sex with a face implanted on a slab of concrete

or how entire fleets of cybermen and daleks are just sucked up into a hole?

or the half human half dalek? who were using mutant pig people in new york with andrew shitty peter parker garfield.

not to mention rtd idea of an arc was "lets say a word a couple times"

or his obsession with rose?

there were tons of shit in the rtd run.

also vastra bad? vastra and the paternoster gang are some of the best characters in doctor who. your opinion is invalid and highly laced with nostalgia

[Deleted]

Not displaying a beheading in a world wide viewed show after recent horrific events involving that subject matter isn't 'censorship'. That's called common decency and respect for human rights. No one is censoring them. They are choosing to be tactful. You should be applauding their ethics not trying to make an issue where there is none.

But any beheading in Doctor Who has nothing to with any beheading in the news. It's simply ridiculous to get offended by something that is clearly unrelated.

[Immitis]

"Actor Ben Miller may already be appearing as the Sheriff of Nottingham in Doctor Who this weekend, but that hasn’t stopped him expressing interest in playing the Doctor himself.

Speaking to Metro he said: ”I would love to but that’s about as likely as time travel! Anyone who said no would either be lying or mad – it would be like saying no to playing 007.”

Talking about his role as the Sheriff in Robot of Sherwood: ”This time I’m bad, I’m breaking bad. Mark Gatiss has written a proper villain. My Sheriff is so much fun to play – no holding back with him.”

Talking about his experience working on the show: ”It makes you proud to think our TV industry is capable of making something like that . Despite the size of it, when you’re on set it feels very intimate. You feel at home, you could be shooting with some mates.

”It’s not a show where you don’t see the stars except for their takes – Peter and Jenna are on set the whole time. ”"

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/ben-mil...ctor+Who+TV%29

[Teroseth]

also vastra bad? vastra and the paternoster gang are some of the best characters in doctor who. your opinion is invalid and highly laced with nostalgia

Their latest appearance was very mixed. Strax was fantastic but Jenny's every other sentence (it seemed) was about reminding the audience she and Vastra were married, and Vastra herself was decent overall but I cringed with the veil thing as it was a very heavy/clumsy and hastily abandoned metaphor.

[Arlee]

Their latest appearance was very mixed. Strax was fantastic but Jenny's every other sentence (it seemed) was about reminding the audience she and Vastra were married, and Vastra herself was decent overall but I cringed with the veil thing as it was a very heavy/clumsy and hastily abandoned metaphor.

The veil thing could have been done much much better. It was really weird the way they did it and it made me sad

[Adam Jensen]

A beheading sequence from the climax of this Saturday’s episode of Doctor Who, Robot of Sherwood, has been edited out by the BBC as a mark of respect in the light of recent news events in Iraq and Syria.

The edit has been made to remove a decapitation in the climatic fight scene between Robin Hood and the Sheriff; something that could be deemed insensitive after two US journalists were killed by IS (Islamic State) militants in the past month.

Robot of Sherwood is written by Mark Gatiss and was filmed in February, long before the IS hit the headlines. It centres around Peter Capaldi’s twelfth Doctor and Jenna Coleman’s Clara meeting the flamboyant Robin Hood, played by Tom Riley.

A spokesman for the BBC said: “In light of recent news events, we have made an edit to episode three out of respect.”

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/bbc-cut...cene-66298.htm

I hate it when they do that.

Like people can't tell the difference between a fictional beheading and an actual one? The episode was filmed long before at least the most recent one happened, possibly before both.

Would it be insensitive for me to now watch Game of Thrones which features a beheading in Season 1 Episode 1, when they introduce Lord Eddard Stark?

It's insensitive now but in an arbitrary amount of time it'll be okay again?

[Skayth]

It's a family show, therefore children safe. It is certainly not an adult show.

Id call it a parental guidance tv show. Think about all the pg movies we have had with extents of gore, scares, and such. For example, the pg Poltergeist has a scene where the lead rips chunks of flesh from his face and drops them into a sink, bringing about his skull, with all the gore and horror intact. Not exactly child safe. But, the movie, itself, was not a bad movie to be rated anything other. While, yes you can let your kid sit there and watch it, with little to no regards to what they are watching, and they decide watch it based on its rating, and then have nightmares, then it is your fault for letting them watch it. PG stands for parental guidance, not "no blood, no real horror," it means, watch the movie and understand the nature of it prior to letting your child seeing it. I sure as hell am not going to let my child watch Poltergeist during their early years.

The same goes for doctor who. While there is no "horror, gore, and such," it does have some pretty adult themes about it. The daleks want to exterminate everything, and are genocidal. Their lazers kill individuals and show the skeleton of the person, even if for a moment. Waters of Mars shows a humans puking water, trying to kill other humans, and then the doctor bending time to his will, forcing the commander to shoot herself, to prove her point. Weeping angels can definitely be scary for a child, and think of them taking it to heart and seeing every statue as an angel. Oh,the ood... The show is NOT child safe. It is for the parent to decide if its safe for their child or not.

Me, personally, I think the show is fine for children, as long as it is made sure that its completely fantasy. But it is not child safe, as is "my little pony."

[Arrowstormen]

I'm pretty annoyed that a scene was cut out, makes it seem incomplete. Hope it isn't of too much importance.

[Shockeye]

The head writer and producer disagrees.

I see what you did there!

As for the beheading being cut, yeah, that sucks, though it is understandable in a messed up way. The UK seems to have more of a touchy relationship with beheadings, both historically and currently. The guy that beheaded the first of the two recent journalists was from the UK, and because of the UKs large Muslim populations there's more closeness with the events that go on in the Middle East.

Plus, people *love* to be outraged and offended (as clearly seen with the Vastra-Jenny kiss kerfuffle) and Doctor Who is, for some reason, believed my many to be some paragon of virtuousness from the BBC and whenever they make a "mis-step" the morality squad jumps all over it.

So while logically it makes no sense and is ridiculous to get offended, those sorts of knee jerk reactions are not rooted in rationality or sense, but can have negative impacts on the state of the show (Philippe Hinchcliffe was removed back in the mid-70s because the morality squad raised a stink about how violent the show had become - that action led to the beginning of the ratings decline, which the original series never saw higher than during his time as producer), something we really don't need just as a new direction and new Doctor begin to take shape.
It's a concession, which is the lesser of evils, despite the caving to morons.

- - - Updated - - -

Would it be insensitive for me to now watch Game of Thrones which features a beheading in Season 1 Episode 1, when they introduce Lord Eddard Stark?

Yes. By doing so you will personally contribute to the moral degradation of society and when all decency is stripped from the world, you will be to blame.

Also be sure not to watch any documentaries on the Guillotine, use the phrase "heads will roll" or "off with their heads", and whatever you do, DO NOT watch this video. At least until the next moral outrage, like Kate's knickers being seen again, dominates the news cycle. At which point any underwear-related content will be stripped due to considerations of sensitivity.

[MatadorMedia]

The veil thing could have been done much much better. It was really weird the way they did it and it made me sad

After I watched the original screener, I thought for sure that was going to be a scrapped scene. It didn't make any sense, so why include it? Just for runtime? If the first episode was normal length it would be much better. The first 30 minutes fell flat, and actually so did the ending. Are we supposed to believe that Clara can't accept the Doctor with his new face? Clara.... the girl who has seen all 13 faces of the Doctor and even traveled with 3 of them simultaneously... doesn't understand regeneration? Yah ok.