MovieChat Forums > ReelReviews14 > Replies
ReelReviews14's Replies
I KNEW Moffat couldn't resist sabotaging Calpadi's "farewell" episode. He must have figured he could get away with it now that the regular season is over and he's no longer getting daily hate mail. THE BOYCOTT MUST CONTINUE!
People keep demanding 20th Century Fox "give the rights back to Marvel" for the X-Men franchise, when they SHOULD be demanding CBS "give the rights back to NBC" for Star Trek.
>>>I agree, I've completely lost interest in this last season, I can't think of one episode I've really enjoyed or which has even kept my attention. When they showed the flashbacks at the end, it made me really sad that the days when Doctor Who was fun and not just a dreary dirge are gone... I really hope the new Doctor sees a change in that but I'm not holding my breath<<<
BINGO! You've nailed it. I actually feel story Capaldi's entire era was squandered by Moffat. It cannot compare to the good ol' days of THIS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kSf8w28Fs4
>>> I think it's really unfair to put it on "Bill" (not sure why the quotes since it is her name) <<<
It is a fact that the show became COMPLETELY unwatchable once "Bill" showed up, and the ratings reflect that (over 1 million die hard Whovians STOPPED watching the show after they learned the Doctor's new companion would be "Bill", and I'm proud to say I'm among them)
The idiotic idea of a female companion having a male name rightfully deserves ridicule (there are female variations on "Bill", nobody would have objected if the companion was named Billie Jean or Williamina), and is in quotes she she cannot be taken seriously as an actual character. It was truly Doctor Who's jump the shark moment, just like it was idiotic on Happy Days to show Fonzie literally jumping a shark on water skies while wearing his leather jacket over his swimming trucks.
>>>"I have been shocked by the reaction of some people who would describe themselves as fans of the programme to the casting of a really good actress in the role. Some of them I know and am sad to see them vowing to 'never watch the programme again'. <<<
Colin's behind the times. Many of us STOPPED watching Doctor Who long before the "first female Doctor" was announced, so you can't accuse us of "sexism" (although the Moffat shills try to do so anyway)
>> The show is still good <<
The show has reached rock bottom, and the ratings rightfully reflect that. I have not yet formed an opinion on "Series 11" since Chibnall will be in charge of it and NOT Moffat, but its hard to see how anyone could repair the damage Moffat has done to do Doctor Who at this point. Legions of fans have abandoned the show at this point and the ratings are starting to make the Colin Baker years look good in comparison. Stunt casting is not going to help their cause. If Moffat were in charge of the "first female Doctor", the show probably wouldn't last a full season before they pulled the plug due to universal scorn for the show.
People are only saying it "needs a rest" because the show's popularity has been driven into the ground under Moffat's regime. Remember, the original Doctor Who program lasted 26 straight seasons before they "needed a rest" and went on hiatus. The revived version has been on much less than half that time (10 seasons). If the people in charge of it were giving us GOOD Doctor Who episodes, nobody would claim its been on too long and needs a "rest". Did people say the original run of the show needed a "rest" in 1973 during Pertwee's era? Of course not. The original show was still running on full steam after 10 seasons and hadn't even reached its peak yet, which would happen during Tom Baker's run of 7 straight seasons.
Calpaldi could have been a wildly popular Doctor and his three seasons could have been must see TV if the show was in the hands of a GOOD showrunner. In fact, audiences would probably be begging for a fourth season of Calpaldi in the hands of a GOOD showrunner. Alas, Moffat was in charge and he tried to turn Calpaldi into a "hip" Doctor and waste an entire season pandering to SJWs.
Odd thing, Moffat was one of the best Who writers during the RTD era. But after he got total creative control of the show, it's been nothing but downhill for the last three years.
Agree 100%. BBC shills tried it spin it as much as they could by praising the horrible addition of "Bill" and claiming this was "Calpadi's best season" and "much better than Series 9". The fans weren't fooled. We saw that Moffat was out of ideas and the entire season was a waste of time and all they cared about was pandering the SJWs.
Yep. I warned people that "series 10" was going to suck and they should boycott before their memories of the twelfth doctor are forever tarnished by the garbage that Moffat will be giving him.
Sadly, not enough fans listened.
The movie is rated PG for a reason. PG means Parental Guidance Suggested. G rating means go ahead and let a 4 year old watch it by themselves and everything will be hunky dorky. If they let a 4 year old see The Secret Life of Pets and it caused the pre-schooler to freak out, they have nobody to blame but themselves for not checking the MPAA rating first. PG is not G.
I agree. I thought the movie overall was a lot better than I expected and very funny and engaging, but the rabbit villain was terrible. Nothing he said was amusing and I wanted to strangle him every time he was on screen. Seemed like they were going for a unfunny, black version of Baby Herman from Roger Rabbit.
>>> The Easter episode (finale) was awful. I gave up. No second season for me. <<<
Ditto. I found it pretty tacky and stupid, though the 14 different "Jesus" characters did seem like faithful to how you would imagine "Jesus" would be in the flesh. No season 2 for me, either.
Exactly. That my reaction after binge watching all 8 episodes of season 1. It was an exhausting experience that left me shaking my head going "WTF?!!?!"
>>>>
Second, if Season 2 continues the magic of the last 10 minutes of this episode, I'll keep watching. The first season was a slog for me. I stand by all my complaints about it.
<<<<
The first season was a slog for me as well, but the difference is I won't be watching season 2. The dramatic Odin reveal was well done but the show as a whole seems to be going nowhere. I thought the first two episodes were very intriguing, and it was just scattershot for me after that, although there were some creative scenes and clever dialogue throughout the rest of the season.
I spent most of my time shaking my head about how vulgar and obscene the show is... and for those who claim "you must be a prude who can't take adults-only material", I'm the kind of guy who can sit thru Hellraiser movies without blinking. I honestly think American Gods did stuff that would make Clive Barker blush in comparison.
Never read the book, but if the TV series is indeed a "faithful" adaptation, I don't think I want to.
>>>
a blatant jab at Trump and his "Make America Great Again" mumbo jumbo. For example the "Not Being Able to Marry Non-Maj" parallels the "marriage equality" debate in the real world.
<<<
Trump is for gay marriage and ran as the most liberal Republican candidate on gay rights, openly courting the "LGBTQ for Trump" vote. Your premise makes no sense. It would like saying a movie bashing capitalism is taking a jab at Bernie Sanders candidacy.
I made it thru all 8 episodes of the first season, but it was a chore. I won't be watching season 2, since season 1 pretty much went nowhere. Odd, the first two episodes had some intriguing ideas. Too bad they didn't do anything with them.
I'm still shaking my head that this ultra R-rated series is from the same guy who created Coraline. There was stuff in American Gods that would make the creators of Hellraiser blush.
Exactly! Alex Kurtzman is the reason people are worried about this show, not because of "diversity"
>> And yet the show has been renewed until at least 2023! <<
And yet the dung you're getting on the show NOW is only going to last two more episodes, because the BBC has already announced that Chris Chibnall is taking over next season and starting over from scratch. We won't get more than a single season of Peter Calpaldi with "Bill". What a coincidence, right?
>> Still, referring to the character as problematic because she has an afro is at best silly, at worst plainly racist. <<
You do realize NOT all people who have afros are black, right? Sounds like the only one who is making a "racist" thing out of it is you. Stupid outdated haircuts are stupid outdated haircuts. Going by your "logic", if they added a character with a mullet and you complained about it, it could possibly be due to racism against whites. Did the movie Joe Dirt 2 get awful reviews because people just couldn't stand a white guy in the lead, hmmm?
>>>
Having an issue because the character is a lesbian is at best silly, at worst homophobic. <<<
Right. Which is why people tuned out in droves when Jack Harkness was introduced and openly dated other men. Oh, that's right! THAT character actually had a good story arc in his own right about being immortal and was likeable and charming, UNLIKE the slop we're getting now. Amazing how all the "homophobic" people who dislike "Bill" didn't tune out the show before, isn't it?
BTW, you do realize fans reacted NEGATIVELY to Bill the FIRST time she was shown in a trailer, and that was BEFORE the BBC had revealed the character was gay, right? Funny how we were all magically "homophobic" when nobody knew she was homosexual. Perhaps the evil homophobes were responsible for Hillary Clinton losing the 2008 Presidential campaign, BEFORE she had endorsed gay marriage. They KNEW she's endorse it several years later, so they forced her to lose to Obama as "payback" for what she was going to do in 2015. The homophobes are just so incredibly insidious, then can psychically foresee the future.
>> I do find you silly, a bit racist and clearly homophobic. <<
Yep, and saying The Fantastic Four remake bombed because it was terrible is silly, angel's food cake and white flour products are racist, the word "fruit" is clearly homophobic and invented to hate on gay people, and your posts are brilliant scholarly arguments.
To me, it felt like a cross between BRIDGE TO TERABITHIA and PAN'S LABYRINTH