Rate Flesh and Stone

Rate Flesh and Stone

10
0
No votes
9
0
No votes
8
1
100%
7
0
No votes
6
0
No votes
5
0
No votes
4
0
No votes
3
0
No votes
2
0
No votes
1
0
No votes
0
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 1
Kafka
 
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:54 pm
Contact:

Thought it was great.

And as for the 'come-on' scene between Amy and the Doctor at the end, I saw it as a way for The Grand Moff (for surely that is His Name) to hammer the point home that "his" Doctor is quite a bit more alien and detached than the Tennant/RTD version-that's been really apparent to me since the start of this season. Let's face it, Tennant's Doc would have been chasing Amy round the bed if there'd been so much as a hint of liplocking... :roll:
User avatar
Greyhawk
 
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:52 pm
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba Canada
Contact:

8/10... knocking a point off for the embarrassing scene at the end.
"YOU INTERNET BULLY. COME OUT AND I WILL PHYSICALLY ASSAULT YOU FOR QUOTING ME ON THE INTERNET!!!"
- Bored of Canada (paraphrasing iamthedoctor)

"Makes me want to just pack up and quit and go to another site where we dont have all these rules."
"This is getting crazy now. Its supposed to be a discussion site."
"...me and him just meet in a public place so I can give him a bloody good kicking..."
"So if thats the case we re getting 44 episodes in november then!"
"Is William Hurt making a appearance in Saturdays episode?"
"Has Frasier Hines said hes done a commentary for Fury?"
- iamthedoctor

"...sh*t posters will sh*t post..."
"HE WAS MEAN TO ME ON THE INTERNET!"
- Bored of Canada

"You are everything that is wrong with this thread. Cheap insults from behind a keyboard."
- DOOMSTER
User avatar
chasersbass
 
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:54 pm
Contact:

WHOis007? wrote:I'm probably alone in this but I didn't mind Amy's (well, let's be blunt) molestation of the Doctor. The psychology is really quite accurate.

Abandonment, return of a childhood hero. Gives up dreams, decides to marry a 'normal' guy, faced with that, she goes a bit...loopy.

Maybe It was her crack that made her do it :D


boom boom
User avatar
Shaving Foamasi
 
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:51 am
Contact:

Really enjoyed it - gave it 9.

I cannot understand how people are saying that at the end Amy was acting out of character. It has been obvious from the start that she is totally infactuated with the Doctor (she made dolls of him for God's sake!). After surviving a near death experience, she decided to grasp the nettle and try to get in his pants. She had him alone in her bedroom after all. For me, that highlighted a weakness in RTD's writing of Rose & Martha. Put in a similar situation, as they both were, I cannot believe they didn't try it on with the man they both supposedly fancied so much. Amy trying to bed the Doctor is a far more realistic reaction IMHO.

Oh and River did know Amy - that's why she said "see you" rather than "goodbye" at the end - she knew they would meet again.

I wondered how the story could have actually happened if it finished with all of The Angels having never existed, but perhaps there is more that we haven't been told yet...
You mean you believed the Doctor would never regenerate into a woman?
User avatar
tony ingram
 
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:03 pm
Contact:

Greyhawk wrote:8/10... knocking a point off for the embarrassing scene at the end.
But it was supposed to be embarrassing. If it hadn't been clumsy and embarrassing, it wouldn't have worked!
User avatar
Shaving Foamasi
 
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:51 am
Contact:

Makkabee wrote:Hordes of angels running about and not looking at/immobilizing each other bothers me, Moffatt made such a big deal about that being their big weakness last time he used the things.
He made it clear in the first episode that the angels he met earlier on Earth were desperate scavengers - the Angels portrayed here are a bit different. Why do you let these things "bother" you? Can't you just enjoy it for what it is?
You mean you believed the Doctor would never regenerate into a woman?
Dobey Kweeg
 
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:26 pm
Contact:

Shaving Foamasi wrote:
Makkabee wrote:Hordes of angels running about and not looking at/immobilizing each other bothers me, Moffatt made such a big deal about that being their big weakness last time he used the things.
He made it clear in the first episode that the angels he met earlier on Earth were desperate scavengers - the Angels portrayed here are a bit different. Why do you let these things "bother" you? Can't you just enjoy it for what it is?
I must invite you over for a game of monopoly, Shaving, and as we play, change the rules to suit me as we go! I'm sure you wont object! :)
toxicspurge
 
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

I don't see they changed the rules at all. You find a half-dead bear by the side of the road...you wouldn't expect him to act the same as if you run into a healthy one in the wild.
Makkabee
 
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:01 am
Contact:

Shaving Foamasi wrote:
Makkabee wrote:Hordes of angels running about and not looking at/immobilizing each other bothers me, Moffatt made such a big deal about that being their big weakness last time he used the things.
He made it clear in the first episode that the angels he met earlier on Earth were desperate scavengers - the Angels portrayed here are a bit different. Why do you let these things "bother" you? Can't you just enjoy it for what it is?
Because I have critical faculties. You should try it, it makes the world a more complex and interesting place.

The "they were scavangers" excuse is of course a load of poorly thought out kack that fools people who are willing to turn their brains off. Those of use who do bother to think notice that the Angels in Blink were in fact in better condition than the ones here who couldn't even fully maintain their forms at the episode's start.
"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)
toxicspurge
 
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Makkabee wrote:
Shaving Foamasi wrote:
Makkabee wrote:Hordes of angels running about and not looking at/immobilizing each other bothers me, Moffatt made such a big deal about that being their big weakness last time he used the things.
He made it clear in the first episode that the angels he met earlier on Earth were desperate scavengers - the Angels portrayed here are a bit different. Why do you let these things "bother" you? Can't you just enjoy it for what it is?
Because I have critical faculties. You should try it, it makes the world a more complex and interesting place.

The "they were scavangers" excuse is of course a load of poorly thought out kack that fools people who are willing to turn their brains off. Those of use who do bother to think notice that the Angels in Blink were in fact in better condition than the ones here who couldn't even fully maintain their forms at the episode's start.
Wow! Way to insult people who have a different POV than yours Duck! I guess I have no critical faculties, turn my brain off and am a fool since it seemed reasonable to me. They were sucking up a lot of radiation, so quickly regenerated....I didn't automatically equate being in crappy physical condition meaning they were less dangerous than the Scavengers on Earth...but you know how we people are who have no critical faculties.

I also appreciate you teaching me what "condescending" means.

Have a nice day!
User avatar
Shaving Foamasi
 
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:51 am
Contact:

Makkabee wrote:
Shaving Foamasi wrote:
Makkabee wrote:Hordes of angels running about and not looking at/immobilizing each other bothers me, Moffatt made such a big deal about that being their big weakness last time he used the things.
He made it clear in the first episode that the angels he met earlier on Earth were desperate scavengers - the Angels portrayed here are a bit different. Why do you let these things "bother" you? Can't you just enjoy it for what it is?
Because I have critical faculties. You should try it, it makes the world a more complex and interesting place.

The "they were scavangers" excuse is of course a load of poorly thought out kack that fools people who are willing to turn their brains off. Those of use who do bother to think notice that the Angels in Blink were in fact in better condition than the ones here who couldn't even fully maintain their forms at the episode's start.
What a load of pretentious and patronising drivel.

You do realise that Doctor Who is a family based TV drama don't you and not a James Joyce novel don't you?
You mean you believed the Doctor would never regenerate into a woman?
Dobey Kweeg
 
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:26 pm
Contact:

Shaving Foamasi wrote:
What a load of pretentious and patronising drivel.

You do realise that Doctor Who is a family based TV drama don't you and not a James Joyce novel don't you?

But we arent talking about deep analysis here, just the most basic narrative devices. Lets take Dracula - he shrivels up in sunlight at teh climax of the first film, and in teh sequel, hes wondering around in broad daylight. No explanation is given, but this is a direct sequel to teh first film where the tiniest ray left him crispy fried. Do you ignore this fact, or start to think the film makers are taking you for some kind of attention deficited mug?
toxicspurge
 
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Well I think the whole gravity reversal thing at the front made no sense whatsoever, but I don't treat the people who weren't bothered by it like they are a piece of sh*t.
Gorkle
 
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:33 pm
Contact:

Hi Guys
Dobey Kweeg wrote:Lets take Dracula - he shrivels up in sunlight at teh climax of the first film, and in teh sequel, hes wondering around in broad daylight. No explanation is given, but this is a direct sequel to teh first film where the tiniest ray left him crispy fried. Do you ignore this fact, or start to think the film makers are taking you for some kind of attention deficited mug?
:lol: Hi Dobey.

I can't remember the Prince Of Darkness wandering around in broad daylight with no narrative excuse in the eponymous film. What I can remember is it looking like broad daylight, because whatever filters Hammer were using on their camera lenses to try to make it look like night, while they were filming in broad daylight, weren't up to the job! :Doctor 3D: I seem to remember the narrative made it quite clear that it was supposed to be nighttime. I haven't seen it for a few years but I accepted the long shadows that The Count's figure cast in the middle of the night in the same way that I accepted the fact that blood in Hammer films seemed to be bright orange. But I knew it was supposed to be night, and I knew it was supposed to be blood.

As for the reverse gravity thing, it puzzled me on the terrestrial viewing too, and I said to my friend with the busted back (who I seem to be watching Doctor Who with every couple of weeks now) that we needed to watch the beginning again, on iplayer, so we did. And the Doctor says, very quickly, that the ship crashed with the power on, which means the artificial gravity was still on. "One good jump and up we fell. Shot out the Grav Globe to give us an updraft and here we are".

Wonderful. Just happened too quickly for me to catch what he said. Nothing jarred, once again, for me, in this episode. Not even the 'controversial' last couple of minutes in the bedroom. I mean, we've all been there, haven't we? Some impossibly young, attractive, bewildered, over-excited person throwing themselves at you and begging you to sleep with them, seemingly out of the blue.

At least, it seems to happen to My Mate Dave on a regular basis. So he tells me. :Drunk:

I gave both episodes a 9.
Zenith
 
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:21 pm
Contact:

"As for the reverse gravity thing, it puzzled me on the terrestrial viewing too, and I said to my friend with the busted back (who I seem to be watching Doctor Who with every couple of weeks now) that we needed to watch the beginning again, on iplayer, so we did. And the Doctor says, very quickly, that the ship crashed with the power on, which means the artificial gravity was still on. "One good jump and up we fell. Shot out the Grav Globe to give us an updraft and here we are".
I think it's the equivalent of a Dyson Sphere, the planet/surface you are on has its own gravity but if you flew up to the inner shell of the Dyson Sphere you are then subject to it's Gravity instead.... The Doctors stunt enables the crew to swap one gravity's attraction for the one above. It could have been put across better maybe but i definitly got the idea behind it.
Dobey Kweeg
 
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:26 pm
Contact:

Gorkle wrote:Hi Guys
Dobey Kweeg wrote:Lets take Dracula - he shrivels up in sunlight at teh climax of the first film, and in teh sequel, hes wondering around in broad daylight. No explanation is given, but this is a direct sequel to teh first film where the tiniest ray left him crispy fried. Do you ignore this fact, or start to think the film makers are taking you for some kind of attention deficited mug?
:lol: Hi Dobey.

I can't remember the Prince Of Darkness wandering around in broad daylight with no narrative excuse in the eponymous film. What I can remember is it looking like broad daylight, because whatever filters Hammer were using on their camera lenses to try to make it look like night, while they were filming in broad daylight, weren't up to the job! :Doctor 3D: I seem to remember the narrative made it quite clear that it was supposed to be nighttime. I haven't seen it for a few years but I accepted the long shadows that The Count's figure cast in the middle of the night in the same way that I accepted the fact that blood in Hammer films seemed to be bright orange. But I knew it was supposed to be night, and I knew it was supposed to be blood.

Ooops! Should have said they were hypothetcal Dracula films, not the actual ones! Sorry!
Gorkle
 
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:33 pm
Contact:

Dobey Kweeg wrote: Ooops! Should have said they were hypothetcal Dracula films, not the actual ones! Sorry!
:lol: Priceless! I really thought you were referencing the first two Hammer Dracula films! :VoidStuff:

My apologies.
User avatar
Shaving Foamasi
 
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:51 am
Contact:

Is the difference in The Angels really any more of a narrative problem than any of the others in Dr Who over the years? For example, the difference between the Macra in The Macra Terror and those in Gridlock? Or the Daleks in The Chase who cannot even add up properly compared to those being capable of destroying the whole of reality in Journey's End?

Or, let's go back to the beginning - an attack on a City full of thousands (if not millions) of Daleks being undertaken by half a dozen people with a couple of them killed on the way as portrayed in the first Dalek story. Let's not also forget the umpteen re-tellings of how Atlantis was supposedly destroyed.

Contradiction, inconsistency and far-fetched storytelling isn't a new thing in Doctor Who. It has always been there. You make a choice as to whether you let it spoil things for you or you just let it ride if it's an exciting and engaging enough story.

Sometimes it bugs me sometimes it doesn't. Last of the Time Lords bugged me because it was a step too far for me to take seriously. Re-writing Sarah Jane's relationship with the Doctor in School Reunion from best friends, as portrayed in the 70's, to unrequited love is another. But, I wouldn't effectively call someone a shallow piece of sh*t if such anomalies didn't let them spoil their enjoyment of any programme...
You mean you believed the Doctor would never regenerate into a woman?
User avatar
tony ingram
 
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:03 pm
Contact:

In fact, there are no real contradictions surrounding the destruction of Atlantis in Doctor Who. The Atlantis we saw in The Time monster was ancient Atlantis, before it sank. The one seen in The Underwater Menace was modern day Atlantis, the sunken city built by the survivors of the sinking. And Azal's comment in The daemons could be taken to mean anything. Maybe he sank what remained of Atlantis after the Chronovore's attack (Ingrid Pitt was still very much alive at the end of The Time Monster and her throne room still more or less standing). Maybe Azal was responsible for Kronos. Maybe he was bluffing. Point is, neither scenario contradicts the other.
toxicspurge
 
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

It's called "Willing Supsension of Disbelief". The author presents us with a fictional scenario. We agree to accept that the basic premises of this scenario. In exchange, the author agrees to keep things logically consistent within the framework of the scenario. We choose (I say "choose", but it's not so much a voluntary choice most of the time) how far the author can stretch the premise before we're no longer willing to accept he or she is operating within the rules he/she has set up. Thus, we "decide" how far we're willing to suspend our disbelief.

Some people have a higher threshold than others. The more "stretches" to the original constraints you're wiling to accept, the more you can stay within the "suspension of disbelief".

I enjoyed Superman; The Movie when it came out. We accept going in that a man can fly, etc. When the "suspension of disbelief" bubble burst for me was when Superman flew around the planet, reversing it's direction of rotation and turning back time. (1. You'd destroy the planet reversing it's rotation. 2. The flow of time has nothing to do with which direction the planet rotates).

I don't think the degree to which you can suspend disbelief, though, is a measure of your critical thinking abilities. It's more a measure of how much you're willing to stuff into the "disbelief" bag. Some people are willing to overlook huge gaps in logical consistency for the sake of enjoying the story. For others, the smallest mistake or chronal anachronism (That model car wasn't made until two years after the year the movie was set) burst their bubble.

One's not necessarily better than the other, they're just different. It doesn't necessarily mean you don't have critical thinking skills if you can suspend disbelief more. Some people can do that for the sake of the enjoyment of the story. Some people can't.
Post Reply

Return to “SERIES 5”

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests