MovieChat Forums > ReelReviews14 > Replies
ReelReviews14's Replies
>> 5 was as good as I remembered then the wheels really came off on A Good Man Goes To War. Ts like Moffat thought oh well the fans will accept anything it doesn't need continuity or respect for the past, they'll lap it up whatever it is.
Still I liked the way the S7 episodes were more self contained and the settings were more varied, less soap opera pish and Matt and Jenna's chemistry was brilliant. You can tell they really liked each other in real life.
IMO S7 is the last hurrah for New Who before it really all went to absolute sh!t in Capaldi's time.
Capaldi's had two above average stories, Into the Dalek and Heaven Sent, and even then there's a lot of stupid sh!t in that story too. That's it however in 2 years for me whilst the rest of his era contains some of the worst stories ever made.
Capaldi's entire run was disappointing. The moon is an egg. Embarrassing.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Agree 100%. "A Good Man Goes to War" is when the show started to suck, and was the beginning of the end for the Moffat era. Jenny Flint and the "Paternoster Gang" ("WE'RE GAY!! WE'RE GAY!!! WE'RE GAY!!!! DID WE MENTION WE'RE GAY? By the way being gay is no big deal these days..." Oh and also WE'RE GAY!!!!) were just a trial run for "Bill Potts", the worst companion on Who history.
I feel really bad for Capaldi, who had the misfortune of inheriting the role when the show was churning out absolutely the WORST material in its history. You made a good point that even the handful of "good" episodes he had were still very flawed. Season 8 and 9 were a chore to sit thru, now "Series 10" is utterly unwatchable tripe.
>>> I also totally liked the "Impossible girl" Clara and how that was written. <<<
Shhh. The Moffat apologists/BBC shills don't like to be reminded of that. The "official" BBC talking point now is that people HATED Clara and couldn't wait for her to be replaced with an ugly lesbian with a man's name, so the show is sooooo much better now. In their revisionist history, audiences were hoping and praying Amy Pond was replaced with an ugly SJW character whose only purpose on the show is tell everyone she's a lesbian every episode. We're supposed to believe fans were devastated when we got "The Impossible Girl" instead.
Meanwhile, in the real world, we can remember the good ol' days of the Moffat era, BEFORE Moffat lost his mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqz_JyAUZyg
:-(
>> Maybe when you revisit it years from now <<
Ahem. I will NEVER watch "series 10", just as I still haven't watched "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" to this day, nearly a decade after it was released. I don't like watching classic franchises ruined by awful installments.
It's also utterly pointless to watch the drivel they're putting out now, since we already know Chris Chibnall is starting over from scratch next season with a new Doctor. It will be a clean slate and he won't be continuing on with any of the characters/stories from the Doctor Who: Social Justice Warrior era.
>> Well from what I can see Oxygen was well received. <<<
Unfortunately for you, claiming it was "well received" doesn't it true.
>>>
First of all I don't find Bill ugly. I just don't. Second I find her to be quite a refreshment from Clara. Third I couldn't care less about her sexual preferences.
<<<
I'm sure the BBC appreciates you repeating their "talking points" about "Series 10". Did they pay you write that drivel? Because you do an excellent job repeating their propaganda for them about how much "better" the show is now and how fans just loooooooooooove having a beautiful classy gal replaced by a butch lesbian with an afro and a man's name.
Unfortunately for you, all your talk about how "good" the show is now won't change the fact that ratings are at an all-time low, so the general public doesn't agree with you and BBC's "buzz" about this season.
A glance at Gaiman's bibliography and his other works include books like Stardust, The Silver Dream,The Ocean at the End of the Lane, M Is for Magic, A Little Gold Book, and picture books for very young children with names like The Day I Swapped My Dad for Two Goldfish, Blueberry Girl, and Crazy Hair.
"American Gods" had material that would make Striptease look like lighthearted kiddie fare in comparison, and Striptease is an R-rated film for adults only, based around Demi Moore getting naked. (yes, I've seen both Striptease and American Gods)
If "American Gods" is indeed faithful to the source material, it would be like turning the latest adaptation of "Shel Silverstein" of "The Giving Tree" fame, to discover the movie is Cannibal Holocaust.
Yeah, he still remained alive, I was trying to think of a scene that involved mass murder and sex at the same time, but which one did escapes me.
The followup made no sense though -- it seemed like the Jinn possessed the cabbie and consumed his soul or something, but the next time we see the cabbie, he's back to his ol' self like nothing happened.
Jinn also aren't "gods" is the Islamic religion, nor are Leprechauns in Irish folklore, so it makes no sense for either to be on a show about "gods" walking the earth.
In any case, back to the topic at hand. A glance at Gaiman's bibliography and his other works include books like Stardust, The Silver Dream,The Ocean at the End of the Lane, M Is for Magic, A Little Gold Book, and picture books for very young children with names like The Day I Swapped My Dad for Two Goldfish, Blueberry Girl, and Crazy Hair.
"American Gods" had material that would make Striptease look like lighthearted kiddie fare in comparison, and Striptease is an R-rated film for adults only, based around Demi Moore getting naked.
If "American Gods" is indeed faithful to the source material, it would be like turning the latest adaptation of "Shel Silverstein" of "The Giving Tree" fame, to discover the movie is Cannibal Holocaust.
Nobody was surprised to see the TV show Ash vs. Evil Dead (also on Starz) was filled with massive carnage and evil demons, since the movies they are based on use the exact SAME format.
To go from Coraline to American Gods is like switching from Pinocchio to Requiem for a Dream.
Read this exert from some poor sap who watched this tripe to see if Doctor Who had gotten any "better" this far into the season (hey, someone's got to monitor Moffat's slop, and it ain't gonna be me)
Here's what he reported:
------------------------------------------------------------
Scene Bill and 9th legion Roman soldiers sitting around
Bill: oh no sorry I only like girls
Once again her lesbian traits are shoehorned into every ep. Worst character ever!!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, the Moffat apologists/BBC shills have been caught lying again, when they claim that "Bill" being a lesbian is not the defining trait of the character, that it was only mentioned in the first episode, and that Bill is a well-written three dimensional character who is only gay to demostrate that "being gay is no big deal anymore"
This entire season has been marketed around SHE'S GAY!!!!!!!!!!! since Day One, and Moffatt's "gay" characters only exist for the purpose of "being gay" and promoting how "progressive" the show is by mentioning they are gay every time they appear on the show.
Facts prove Moffat shrills wrong.
Really, you should talk to the Star Trek Discovery naysayers. They were jeering and complaining when it was announced Bryan Fuller was in charge. Now they got their wish and he's gone.
>> And why would you assume that Neil Gaiman is a children's author based on that one work? <<
The ONLY novel I've ever read by E.B. White was Charlotte's Web.
Should I expect to read another E.B. White and discover A Clockwork Orange meets Rambo type content?
>>>
And why would you assume that Neil Gaiman is a children's author based on that one work? <<<
To be fair, I also saw the Doctor Who episode written by him. They said it would be really "scary" but it wasn't.
If the Doctor Who episode had been filled with gay orgies, CGI penises, Matt Smith hacking apart people every five minutes and spraying their blood every year, and dropping the F-bomb constantly, then sure, I wouldn't have batted an eyelash when American Gods did the same.
Going from Coraline to American Gods is like discovering that Dr. Seuss followed up How the Grinch Stole Christmas with Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. American Gods was so extreme on the TV-MA rating (full frontal male nudity, orgies, people being hacked apart limb by limb and gushing blood constantly) that the people who made Hellraiser and Showgirls would probably blush.
I watched Coraline in 2009 and they said it was based on children's novel by Neil Gaiman. I went and got the graphic novel version of the book and thought it was very interesting. It's the only Neil Gaiman story I've read. Then I watch this TV series expecting to see another creepy fantasy world that appeals to all audiences. Instead I discover this show is TV-MA and filled with EXTREME violence and massive orgies. I hope no parents accidentally let their kids watch this!
>>> We get it. You don't like NuWho. <<<
Au contrair. I have first nine seasons of NuWho on DVD and watch them religiously. I never got into Classic Who until recently (my first Doctor Who episode was The Five Doctors, which is absolutely impossible to follow if you've never seen an episode of Doctor Who before). NuWho is what got me into the franchise, and I've been a loyal follower for a decade (2007-2017). I'm eagerly looking forward to what Chris Chibnall can bring to NuWho, and pray he doesn't screw it up.
It's Moffat utterly DESTROYING Peter Calpaldi's era that I DON'T like!
Off topic, but its very creative, a lot of fun, and Darrell Hammond's "Captain Jack SWALLOWS!" dead on parody of Johnny Depp was hilarious and more than enough made the movie worthwhile (there was a lot of other funny stuff in there too, though). My only complaint with the movie would be that the title and marketing implies they would mock overbloated, 3 hour, zillion dollar Hollywood puff pieces about sword and scandal tales and biblical stories. But I guess they felt movies like "Meet the Spartans" already covered that, so they did unrelated parodies about non-epic movies like Nacho Libre, Snakes on a Plane, and Click. They did mock "epics" a bit with The Chronicles of Narnia and Pirates of the Caribbean parodies, and it was great stuff. Another minor complaint I had was they tried to mock Borat, and you can't really parody something that is a parody to BEGIN with, though the guy doing the Borat impersonation was decent.
Anyway, back on topic, the movie has only a 2% score on Rotten Tomatoes and a terrible On score of 17 out of 100 based on 17 critics on Metacritic, indicating "overwhelming dislike". In short, the vast majority of people don't agree with me. My view is in the extreme minority.
The difference, of course, is that I can admit Epic movie got awful reception in spite of the fact *I* liked it. The people defending Moffat's current garbage can't admit that THEIR view is in the extreme minority and that longtime Who fans have been tuning OUT in droves, and that the latest episodes have the worst reviews in over a decade.
Furthermore, I can sincerely say I liked the movie because it was creative and fun, whereas most of the praise for "Bill" is because they don't want to be called racist and homophobic so they want to be seen as "progressive" for heaping praise on the franchise for giving us a black lesbian character. If those same lines were coming from a straight white female, they'd be able to admit she sucks.
>>>>
And no, no one at the BBC is paying attention or cares about what you have to say, so your posts will in no way contribute to it getting better.
<<<<<
Untrue. You can deny it all you want, but you better believe the BBC is reading the reactions of fans on the internet to the current dung they are serving up, and they are sweating bullets over the plummeting ratings and negative backlash against garbage like "Oxygen" and "The Lie of the Land" They are desperate to stop the bleeding and all the stunts Steven Moffat has tried this season has only made it worse for them. Thanks to the reaction of long time fans like me turning against the show, they are certain to make "Bill" a one season anomley and the latest "rumours" is that they are even planning to get rid of her BEFORE the Christmas special, in the hopes of boosting ratings and getting back disgruntled viewers. If that is true, I will be delighted, and you can thank fans like myself for pushing the BBC to speed up the great Doctor Who rehabilitation of 2018.
>>>
The difference is you aren't actually interested in discussing the show. You're just trolling about how much you don't like it -
<<<<
Untrue. To go with your example, I think Twilight is worthless crap and I've never watched a single one of those movies. If I wanted to troll, I'd go on their message boards and tell the Twihards how much their sparkly vampires suck. But I don't, and I have no interest in harassing the Twihards or disrupting their boards, because I am NOT a fan of their franchise and DO NOT care about discussing it and listening to them defend their garbage.
By contrast, I AM a longtime viewer of Doctor Who and stuck with nuWho for a decade (2007-2017), including sitting thru Calpadi's first two seasons, hoping in vain it would get better. It didn't. It got worse and worse, and "Bill" was the last straw, so I am tuning out this year. This doesn't mean I've given up on the show at all. As a die-hard Whovian I HOPE to come back after they purge "Bill" and start over from scratch without Moffat, and I'm praying Chris Chibnall and the BBC will repair the current death spiral of the franchise and save the show. I have a vested interest in seeing Doctor Who get back on the right path. I will be more to happy to discuss nuWho in detail and what they've done right in the past, and what they're doing wrong now.
If that makes me a "troll", by your definition, then X-Men fans who go on boards like X-Men Origins: Wolverine to post extremely negative threads about the movie and talk about how much they think it sucked and ruined the X-Men universe are "trolls" too. Now, as a disclaimer, I'm actually someone who LIKED X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I wouldn't claim a fellow X-Men fan who utterly loathes that version of the X-Men cinematic universe a "troll". They are free to bash it as much as they want, if they think it conflicted with their vision of how X-Men should be on film.
>>>>
I liked Epic Movie, but that won't change the fact that it got overwhelming negative reception.
Speaking of classic Who, I recently watched Tomb of the Cyberman in place of the anti-capitalism episode "Oxygen". It was infinitely better than the tripe the BBC is currently putting out.
>> If you dislike this season so much, perhaps you could do us all a favor and stop posting here until it's over. <<
Sorry, last time I checked, this is a discussion board for the current incarnation of the franchise, where ALL feedback, good and bad, is welcomed. If you only want to hear one sided praise for the show, you should be writing BBC press releases instead.
Doctor Who fans have a right to speak out when the BBC ruins our favorite sci-fi show. It's the only way things are going to get better.