Rate The Time of Angels

Marks out of ten

10
59
31%
9
50
26%
8
37
19%
7
22
11%
6
6
3%
5
6
3%
4
3
2%
3
3
2%
2
1
1%
1
5
3%
 
Total votes: 192
User avatar
Mike Nuttall
Site Owner
Site Owner
Posts: 7478
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Manchester
Contact:

markhuk wrote:
Love the signature pic btw
It's superb isn't it... ;)
The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people worldwide, is to pursue the cause of liberty.

If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.
User avatar
Mike Nuttall
Site Owner
Site Owner
Posts: 7478
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Manchester
Contact:

ianj wrote:I wrote a big long email stating how the standards have fallen to the crappiest itv can come up with etc..and how I resent PAYING for sh*te when I can watch it for free on itv, and got THE SAME standard email back! typical bbc-standard issue email-they dont give a toss! Watch something happen again sometime in the future! ianj
Well one good thing to come out of it is that the BBC have promised that it won't happen again.

It's Steven Moffat I feel sorry for, having written one of the best episodes of Doctor Who ever, the BBC plaster a trailer over the climax of it. Ye gods, it's bad enough they shrink the titles and rabbit over the music every week without fail, but intruding into the programme itself with banners is beyond the pale.
The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people worldwide, is to pursue the cause of liberty.

If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.
User avatar
'teleportNOW!'
 
 
Posts: 5984
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:49 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Kajaboy wrote:
Nobbend wrote: The BBC does have an excuse. In order to justify their licence fee they need to keep people watching and NOT switching over to ITV
Oh that's hysterical. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You make it sound like ITV have something, anything, worth watching. :lol:

And ffs, I don't WANT to watch ITV, I WANT to watch BBC! And I CAN'T because some f*****g pillock is yabbering over the theme tune I'm trying to enjoy!
dcampbell

Nobbend wrote:The BBC does have an excuse. In order to justify their licence fee they need to keep people watching and NOT switching over to ITV
The BBC's excuse is not the same as commercial TV's excuse.

Commercial TV generates revenue from advertising, therefore it needs people to keep watching through the ad breaks within and between its programmes.

The BBC generates revenue from the TV Licence, which everyone who owns a TV has to pay, regardless of what programmes they watch (somewhat ironically, even if they only watch ITV).

The BBC needs people to watch its programmes to justify its existence, true, but it does not need people to keep watching from one programme to the next - if we were treated with the respect we deserve we would be left to make up our own minds if we want to keep watching, switch over, or switch off our TV sets and do something less boring instead.
User avatar
'teleportNOW!'
 
 
Posts: 5984
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:49 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

The ridiculous thing is that I often remember and prefer the THEME TUNES of old shows from the 70s and 80s more than I do the shows themselves! They were often the best bit!
Theme tunes and title/exit sequences are a wonderful way to set the scene and pull the viewer into/out of a dramatic world.
Some t**t of a continuity announcer is not.
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20951
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

By the way, River Song says the Angel "can never die" - and it can perhaps create copies of itself - does this remind you of anyone...?

Image

I reckon a pneumatic drill through the heart is what they need.
User avatar
ianj
The Dominator
The Dominator
Posts: 3248
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:09 pm
Contact:

I gave this episode an 8 out of 10; I enjoyed it, but I must state two things that are in the negative,so I can get them out of the way first--the music is too intrusive for me, and why are there "swooshing "music notes every time a remote control is pressed, or a torch beam was pointed in a different direction?? Whats that all about?

This character River Song is played not very well by a not very good actress, who's coming across as very superior and SMUG. Not endearing.

Matt Smith, again, excelled in the role of Doctor Who, with lots of eye and hand movements-very expressive, and , as Ive said before, very Hartnell/Troughtonesque, with the action touch of Pertwee. Smith's speech pattern is appealing, too. He has good diction, and his voice tone sounds good over the action. He has a great "otherWorldiness" about his acting.

Was the actor in the first scene Mike Skinner ( The Streets) ?

Although set in the dark, underground, the scenes were well lit and I could see all of the action , though I noticed the episodes are short, at 41 minutes including the titles and the "Next Week" trailers--we need MORE!!

My freeview digibox has packed up , so my Gary recorded it for me on his dvd recorder, which is normal 625 line tuner, and the bloody Graham Norton pop up!--so it obviously only went out on all the channels............ianj
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20951
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

I found Dr Song irritating in SITL but she is growing on me. Her relationship with the Doctor is rather good, IMHO. Yes she's smug but so is he (in case you haven't noticed :D ) and perhaps she has good reason to be - e.g. perhaps she's a Time Lord, too, albeit apparently temporarily TARDISless. And she seems to relish the thought of popping into a maze and finding a Weeping Angel, which is rather Doctorly of her... She's like a less shy and retiring version of Bette Midler. She also looks more like Matt Smith's mum than his wife, but - well, she was younger, and he was older... it's an interesting idea, and for a show featuring time travel, DW has rarely got into the paradoxes and suchlike that might arise, so I'm willing to give Moffat more rope on this one.
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20951
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

By the way, am I the only person who finds Father Octavian, or whatever his name is, irritating?

"And when you've flown away in your little blue box..." etc. What's he doing in charge of soldiers if he needs to guilt-trip their biggest asset in the middle of a campaign, about something that, let's face it, happens rather a lot in warfare?

Also, how come the Doctor is wimping out when the Angel gets the dead guy to tell him: "I trusted you, and I died alone and afraid..."

Er, actually, it wasn't the Doctor who killed him, it was the person/thing making him say that. Although I liked the Doctor's response ("I'm sorry you're dead, Bob, but I swear to whatever's left of you...") I would have preferred it if he'd also just pointed out that it was the Angels, not him, who killed Bob, so if Bob should be angry with anyone...

So that's two attempts by Mr Moffat to send the Doctor on an unnecessary and inappropriate guilt trip (maybe he's been around RTD too long?)
Nobbend
 
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:57 pm
Contact:

ianj wrote:I gave this episode an 8 out of 10; I enjoyed it, but I must state two things that are in the negative,so I can get them out of the way first--the music is too intrusive for me, and why are there "swooshing "music notes every time a remote control is pressed, or a torch beam was pointed in a different direction?? Whats that all about?

This character River Song is played not very well by a not very good actress, who's coming across as very superior and SMUG. Not endearing.

Matt Smith, again, excelled in the role of Doctor Who, with lots of eye and hand movements-very expressive, and , as Ive said before, very Hartnell/Troughtonesque, with the action touch of Pertwee. Smith's speech pattern is appealing, too. He has good diction, and his voice tone sounds good over the action. He has a great "otherWorldiness" about his acting.

Was the actor in the first scene Mike Skinner ( The Streets) ?

Although set in the dark, underground, the scenes were well lit and I could see all of the action , though I noticed the episodes are short, at 41 minutes including the titles and the "Next Week" trailers--we need MORE!!

My freeview digibox has packed up , so my Gary recorded it for me on his dvd recorder, which is normal 625 line tuner, and the bloody Graham Norton pop up!--so it obviously only went out on all the channels............ianj
I did a wee fix on mine. I recorded the BBC3 repeat, and used the DVD authoring tool TMPGenc 3 (which links sound and video clips seamlessly within a title) to make a Norton free version (albeit with 15 secs of the BBC3 logo), by using the BBC1 version up to a shot change just before the strap, using the repeat until a shot change after the strap has gone, then using the rest of the BBC version form thereon in. I used a similar method to drop in the missing 'nail up the dog' scene from Blackadder's Xmas Carol, using a repeat from Xmas 2008 and my orginal off air VHS. The same method didn't work as well for making up a full five part version of The Daemons using the BBC4 showing, and the 1992 repeat.

So I have two potential versions. One with the strap, and the other with the BBC3 logo.

But which is best? There's only one way to find out

FIIIIGGGHHHHTTTT!!!
User avatar
markhuk
Styles Moderator
Styles Moderator
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:21 pm
Contact:

LizR wrote: So that's two attempts by Mr Moffat to send the Doctor on an unnecessary and inappropriate guilt trip (maybe he's been around RTD too long?)
But it didnt send him on a guilt trip - the Angels attempted to and it failed
Maybe he did it as an attempt to show the differences between this Doctor and the previous version?
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20951
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

markhuk wrote:But it didnt send him on a guilt trip - the Angels attempted to and it failed
Maybe he did it as an attempt to show the differences between this Doctor and the previous version?
Could you elaborate on that - I don't see how this showed the differences...?

(The fact that the Angels failed to guilt-trip the Doctor over Bob's death wasn't my point. My point was that he tacitly accepted that he should feel guilty. He didn't say something sensible like "Actually, Angel, you killed Bob, so why do you think I should feel guilty about it?" Clearly Moffat thinks it's reasonable, in story terms, for some of the characters to expect the Doctor to feel guilty about this. I disagree. Why is he more to blame than, say, whoever drafted Bob into the army? Or Father Octavian, for ordering him to go to that part of the Maze? Or River Song, for reporting the existence of the Angel? Or Bob himself, for not being more careful? The Angels and Father Octavian - and even the Doctor himself, to the extent that he doesn't actually object to this tacit assumption - seems to be assuming the deaths are the Doctor's fault, but I can't see any reason to do that.)
User avatar
Mike Nuttall
Site Owner
Site Owner
Posts: 7478
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Has anyone seen a trailer for Flesh and Stone yet?
The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people worldwide, is to pursue the cause of liberty.

If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.
HornOrSilk

Yes, I've seen a trailer. It's even on the spoiler thread...
Makkabee
 
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:01 am
Contact:

LizR wrote:
markhuk wrote:But it didnt send him on a guilt trip - the Angels attempted to and it failed
Maybe he did it as an attempt to show the differences between this Doctor and the previous version?
Could you elaborate on that - I don't see how this showed the differences...?

(The fact that the Angels failed to guilt-trip the Doctor over Bob's death wasn't my point. My point was that he tacitly accepted that he should feel guilty. He didn't say something sensible like "Actually, Angel, you killed Bob, so why do you think I should feel guilty about it?" Clearly Moffat thinks it's reasonable, in story terms, for some of the characters to expect the Doctor to feel guilty about this. I disagree. Why is he more to blame than, say, whoever drafted Bob into the army? Or Father Octavian, for ordering him to go to that part of the Maze? Or River Song, for reporting the existence of the Angel? Or Bob himself, for not being more careful? The Angels and Father Octavian - and even the Doctor himself, to the extent that he doesn't actually object to this tacit assumption - seems to be assuming the deaths are the Doctor's fault, but I can't see any reason to do that.)
Goes back to the Doctor-as-God problem that's run through the new series. If he's the all-powerful force that gives monsters nightmares and makes Dales tremble in their hover-dildoes then he should be able to save everyone. It's only if we think of him as a limited, fallible being (smarter and more capable than us, sure, but still just muddling through) doing the best he can in a universe he can't fully understand or control that he gets to avoid responsibility for anything that goes wrong while he's around.

Naturally I think he should be played as a limited being, as a scientist and explorer rather than an oncoming storm or intergalactic badass who can chase off monsters just by saying "I'm the Doctor, get lost." Unfortunately when you put fanboys in charge of the show it's hard to get that.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln (attributed)
Nobbend
 
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:57 pm
Contact:

HornOrSilk wrote:Yes, I've seen a trailer. It's even on the spoiler thread...
That is now blocked, and it wasn't the presentation trailer, it was the 'Next time' from Time of Angels
HornOrSilk

Nobbend wrote:
HornOrSilk wrote:Yes, I've seen a trailer. It's even on the spoiler thread...
That is now blocked, and it wasn't the presentation trailer, it was the 'Next time' from Time of Angels
It was a trailer, and one can still see it on youtube. The question was if someone had seen a trailer. I did.
Nobbend
 
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:57 pm
Contact:

HornOrSilk wrote:
Nobbend wrote:
HornOrSilk wrote:Yes, I've seen a trailer. It's even on the spoiler thread...
That is now blocked, and it wasn't the presentation trailer, it was the 'Next time' from Time of Angels
It was a trailer, and one can still see it on youtube. The question was if someone had seen a trailer. I did.
I can't see it on You Tube unless it's been blocked in the UK only. And yes. You're right. It was a trailer. It was the trailer everyone saw at the end of the episode.

In answer to the question I assume the original poster was asking, I personally have not yet seen a trailer made by the BBC Presentation department or the Doctor Who production team specifically promoting Flesh and Stone for this Saturday night. Since there isn't one on the web-page I'm going to assume there isn't one.
User avatar
Mike Nuttall
Site Owner
Site Owner
Posts: 7478
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Manchester
Contact:

HornOrSilk wrote:Yes, I've seen a trailer. It's even on the spoiler thread...
Not the 'Next Time' trailer, a more recent TV one. I haven't seen one all week and nothing's appeared on youtube.

EDIT: There are 3 preview clips from Flesh and Stone here:

http://www.planetkembel.com/forum/viewt ... 7724#p7724
The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people worldwide, is to pursue the cause of liberty.

If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.
Post Reply

Return to “SERIES 5”

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests