It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Great episode all around. Now, I can't wait for series 8.
So far I like him more than I did Tennant did after Eccleston regenerated, and Smith after Tennant regenerated. Thought it was funny when he asked Clara if she knew how to fly the Tardis and I like how mental he seems.
Looking forward to seeing his costume.
Will not happen as PJ is still busy with The Hobbit this coming year, for series 9 he might be available.
Shooting in NZ would put a big hole in the budget (just on travel alone) so it would have to be planned a season in advance with other episodes cutting costs.
If not then I don't think they should bother. It wouldn't be worth spending a massive amount of the budget just to travel to New Zealand for him.
Read more at http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=92546#pUJEpoPVpHs6DFBf.99
"The first episode of series 8 has been written by Steven Moffat with the second episode penned by Phil Ford"
So no two parters again then? I don't care but that seems to be an issue many people had with the last series.
To be fair, the first episodes of each series until the sixth one had always been single ones. In the first series, we got three singles before having the first two-parter.
Hopefully we'll get a look at the outfit soon.
What was atrocious about it?
I think they probably won't announce it until they have to. So they'll wait until just before he starts filming in it, then they'll do a press release showing it off.
I was going to do a full review of this episode.
In brief; The regeneration (clumsy, so say the least), an aged Matt Smith (need I say more), plot holes galore(I.e. Total disregard for the truth field on Trenzalore, The Doctor was asked by the Time Lords his name, which he didn't answer even though the field prevents someone from answering falsely or not giving an answer), the inclusion of the weeping angels, again, the "explain later" Moffat approach, the revelation about the Silence, Moffat, Handles (as if his "death" was meant to provoke some kind of emotion), kidneys, the naked church (perhaps featured for laughs), a bland character in Barnabus and the wooden cyberman.
IMO, this is one of the worst episodes in the rebooted series.
"Aged Matt Smith". Yes, there was an aged Matt Smith. Now if you could point out what exactly was wrong with that then maybe we'd get somewhere.
The revelation about The Silence: he managed to tie that story up nicely. Everyone was constantly asking for answers so they got them. What was wrong with that?
I don't know who Barnabus was.
"Kidneys" you're grasping at straws here. How is that any worse than David Tennant popping up and doing a cheesey grin or Matt Smith complaining about not being ginger?
Handles- so because you personally didn't find his death sad, that's a criticism of the episode. Right. Makes no sense but ok.
Wooden cybermen- yes, there was a wooden cyberman. Again, you haven't actually said what was wrong with that.
"The naked church (perhaps featured for laughs)" That was literally the entire point of the naked church. God forbid they should try and add some comedy.
And finally "Moffat". See, that's the main problem and it's your problem rather than the hows. You were always going to hate it because you don't like Moffat. You went into the episode biased.
To say this is one of the worst episodes of the series is stupid when you look at some of the shite we've had before (farting aliens, the doctor turning into some sparkling God because people said his name, etc) is stupid imo.
As with everything on this list, it is a matter of opinion. I feel that the angels should have been left as a one hit wonder, in Blink. As for the daleks, they are part of British culture and Russel and Moffat have always done something different and unexpected (human dalek) with every episode in which they feature.
"Aged Matt Smith". Yes, there was an aged Matt Smith. Now if you could point out what exactly was wrong with that then maybe we'd get somewhere.
It looked stupid and incredibly cringeworthy. When Tennant did it in The Last of the Time Lords, it was believable and a very strong performance, as if he really was aged by a thousand years. The same cannot be said with Matt's.
The revelation about The Silence: he managed to tie that story up nicely. Everyone was constantly asking for answers so they got them. What was wrong with that?
It was disappointing revelation. I dislike the idea of them turning to the "good side" (reminiscent of Jaws). A great creation, gone to waste.
I don't know who Barnabus was.
Ah, forgive me, I was referring to Barnaby, but not a small difference? Anyhow, it shows much I care for the episode. Again, the casting of child actors, whose acting is wooden (I.e. Nightmare in Silver).
"Kidneys" you're grasping at straws here. How is that any worse than David Tennant popping up and doing a cheesey grin or Matt Smith complaining about not being ginger?
Maybe for Tennant and Smith, but not so much for Capaldi.
Handles- so because you personally didn't find his death sad, that's a criticism of the episode. Right. Makes no sense but ok.
It seemed that Handles was just thrown into the episode as an after thought. There was no explanation as to how he came across it, and no character development.
"The naked church (perhaps featured for laughs)" That was literally the entire point of the naked church. God forbid they should try and add some comedy.
The comedy in the Smith era is childish and OTT, as apparent in an intergalactic church whose member are naked.
And finally "Moffat". See, that's the main problem and it's your problem rather than the hows. You were always going to hate it because you don't like Moffat. You went into the episode biased.
I was completely the opposite. After the success of both The Name and the Day of the Doctor, I was enthusiastic and hopeful that this episode too would be a cracker. Instead, it was rushed, riddled with plot holes and, yes, poorly written.
To say this is one of the worst episodes of the series is stupid when you look at some of the shite we've had before (farting aliens, the doctor turning into some sparkling God because people said his name, etc) is stupid imo.
Exactly, "one of".
How people could dissect a TV programme and attack it so ruthlessly when it's supposed to be something they enjoy!
I didn't get it.
We get a little of it here with Bond, but Dr Who fandom is quite bonkers. Reading some of you guys who care so passionately...I'm nearly as impressed as I am disturbed. ;-)
Anyway, I have always loved the show and have watched it from back in the 70s. However I have never been precious about it, never condemned NewWho as losing sight of what the 'classic' series was about (DT is my favourite Doctor despite having watched the likes of Tom Baker). I actually prefer NewWho, loved the comedy element we saw come in with DT. And I'm excited about PC, regardless of what he wears.
I couldn't care less if things aren't explained properly as long as the show excites, amuses and entertains me. But that's just me. :-)
A relative of mine went to great trouble at Christmas telling me what was wrong with the 50th anniversary special, and where it made no sense at all. Then he criticised Matt Smith for being almost identical to David Tennant. At that point I realised he was someone who could pull the fine detail of the plot apart with a scalpel, but couldn't somehow distinguish between Tennant's flirty, cocky, self confident Doctor and Smith's socially awkward, bumbly, asexual Doctor. Weird.
Read more at http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/starksnewsandreviews/news/?a=92606#Mm17Fkj38psgmJ6p.99
Same here.
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140101232142/tardis/images/4/49/TheDoctorReallyOld.JPG&imgrefurl=http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Last_of_the_Time_Lords_TV_story_images&docid=EV8nORkVFgk4eM&tbnid=wiIie0EiNLmUwM:&w=400&h=262&ei=dXHNUuXpEarI0wXyrIBI&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c
How believable.
Not everything needs character development. Did the robot dog in the old ones get character development? Handles was in the episode to spout some exposition and have a touching death scene. And I'm pretty sure they mentioned that he got it from an alien shop or something but why does it matter? Who really cares?
And how do you think the daleks became so iconic? They were bought back after they were popular. Same with the Angels. Blink got so much praise and they were such a brilliant invention, it would've been a bad idea to not bring them back.
And they have added stuff to them. In the Matt Smith two parter, they were snapping peoples necks and taking over bodies if you looked them in the eye. In the one where Amy and Rory left, they'd invented the farm and the statue of liberty was an angel.
The comedy in the show has always been childish and OTT, right from Ecclestons first episode. Unless you think a burping wheelie bin isn't childish?
And why is this? Because at the end of the day it is a kids show. It's not meant to be adult, it's meant to be something the whole family can watch. So yeah there's going to be childish stuff.
You're confusing something being poorly written with you not liking it.
Same here.
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140101232142/tardis/images/4/49/TheDoctorReallyOld.JPG&imgrefurl=http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Last_of_the_Time_Lords_TV_story_images&docid=EV8nORkVFgk4eM&tbnid=wiIie0EiNLmUwM:&w=400&h=262&ei=dXHNUuXpEarI0wXyrIBI&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c
How believable.
http://www.radiotimes.com/namedimage/Matt_Smith_grows_old_before_his_time_in_Doctor_Who_Christmas_special_2013.jpg?quality=85&mode=crop&width=620&height=374&404=tv&url=/uploads/images/original/44001.jpg
Not everything needs character development. Did the robot dog in the old ones get character development? Handles was in the episode to spout some exposition and have a touching death scene. And I'm pretty sure they mentioned that he got it from an alien shop or something but why does it matter? Who really cares?
Handles was as good a character as Wilson from Castaway...
And how do you think the daleks became so iconic? They were bought back after they were popular. Same with the Angels. Blink got so much praise and they were such a brilliant invention, it would've been a bad idea to not bring them back.
And they have added stuff to them. In the Matt Smith two parter, they were snapping peoples necks and taking over bodies if you looked them in the eye. In the one where Amy and Rory left, they'd invented the farm and the statue of liberty was an angel.
The magic of the weeping angels disappeared when they starting snapping peoples necks...
The comedy in the show has always been childish and OTT, right from Ecclestons first episode. Unless you think a burping wheelie bin isn't childish?
And why is this? Because at the end of the day it is a kids show. It's not meant to be adult, it's meant to be something the whole family can watch. So yeah there's going to be childish stuff.