The Scriptorium

To be fair, Mark Gatiss was just following in the tradition of the 1960s Peter Cushing films. Then again, like the 1960s Batman and classic Star Trek, those films were operating under the "hey, we're in colour! Bet you're not used to that. Let us show you how much in colour we are!" principle of design. I actually don't mind the colours. It's the bump that bothers me, and that they look like they were produced by Apple.

The Amy Pond opening was special for BBC America. Apparently so Americans could understand what the show is about. It doesn't appear on the UK showings, or the Space's online version or the iTunes version. (I'm usually not free to watch TV at 8pm on Saturdays and so have only seen the sillier opening once.)

I'm not a fan of Amy Pond in general. It's a shame because young Amelia Pond shows so much promise. But grown up Amy is like a particularly irritating kind of cardboard. Well, that is if cardboard reacted to the loss of one's child in the same tone of voice that one uses to critique a friend's bow tie fashion choice.

Trust me, you aren't the only person losing interest. Although I did enjoy The Doctor's Wife a fair bit.

Allen

From:

boobamiaow.livejournal.com

you make me laugh :)

I gave up watching Dr Who half way thrugh the first series with Amy and the new Dr. I loved David Tennant and the new Dr annoyed me because he has too much spittle when he is talking!!

From:

For the benefit of those in the UK (or those like me who watch the iTunes or Space Channel website versions), here's what North Americans see after the teaser sting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6Na7gEs6mY

I am glad I usually don't watch the show in a format where they stomp on the teaser sting / opening credits in such a ridiculous manner.

From:

lazigyrl.livejournal.com

And he didn't even give me a purple one. Seriously, if you are going to introduce something as lame brightly coloured daleks at least include purple. *pouts*

It does raise the question though -- do red daleks have the same problem as red shirts?

I tend to watch online so I hadn't known about the "Hi I'm stupid, please explain the concept to me each and every week" opening. Obviously since Dr Who is so new it was a much needed addition. ;)

From:

To be fair, Mark Gatiss was just following in the tradition of the 1960s Peter Cushing films.

I'm ashamed to admit this, but I'd forgotten that there were multi-coloured Daleks in the sixties Peter Cushing films. I've only seen them once -- and that was several years ago. While the nod to the Peter Cushing films is cool, I think they still could have had the hommage and then had the Dalek ship (with all the next gens on board) explode.

Then again, like the 1960s Batman and classic Star Trek, those films were operating under the "hey, we're in colour! Bet you're not used to that. Let us show you how much in colour we are!" principle of design.

I can understand that kind of reasoning, though, obviously, it wouldn't apply to 21st century Doctor Who. Now, if they'd decided to make the Daleks 3D, I'd be on board with the gimic. *g*

I actually don't mind the colours. It's the bump that bothers me, and that they look like they were produced by Apple.

I wouldn't have minded them having a couple of new colours, but, with that rainbow palette, it was like new cars coming off the assembly line -- which may have been their intention, especially in terms of merchandising. I should have mentioned it, but I can't stand the new design either. They do look like something that's been made by Apple!

The Amy Pond opening was special for BBC America. Apparently so Americans could understand what the show is about. It doesn't appear on the UK showings, or the Space's online version or the iTunes version. (I'm usually not free to watch TV at 8pm on Saturdays and so have only seen the sillier opening once.)

Oh, I didn't realize that! I feel better knowing it's not something that has been added to the official transmissions. However, I also feel worse because it's become obvious (once again) that the British really do think North Americans are stupid. Well, to be fair, a lot of North Americans are stupid, but it's hardly a phenomenon that's restricted to this continent. I wonder how they think North American fans coped for those first few years without such an opening?

I'm not a fan of Amy Pond in general. It's a shame because young Amelia Pond shows so much promise. But grown up Amy is like a particularly irritating kind of cardboard. Well, that is if cardboard reacted to the loss of one's child in the same tone of voice that one uses to critique a friend's bow tie fashion choice.

I loved young Amelia Pond the moment I saw her and was actually disappointed when she grew up. I was telling my brother this afternoon that I wished the Doctor had travelled with the child version of Amy Pond instead, which is when he brought up the subject of pedophilia -- and, yes, I have to admit he has a point. All the same, I'm always happy when young Amelia Pond is on the screen.

To be fair, I think my dislike of grown up Amy has more to do with the writing than the acting. I'm not a fan of the pregnant-but-not-pregant-possible-child-of-the-Tardis-This-is-Doctor-Who-so-we-don't-have-to-offer-any-kind-of-sciency-wiency-techy-explanation storyline. Despite my conflicted feelings about Mark Gatiss, I really enjoyed tonight's episode ("Night Terrors") -- and I think it was partly because it was outside this series' main arc.

Trust me, you aren't the only person losing interest. Although I did enjoy The Doctor's Wife a fair bit.

Allen

It's good to know that it's not just me. And, for the record, I loved "The Doctor's Wife". It's probably the one episode this series that really excited me.

From:

you make me laugh :)

Oh, good! I'll be here again tomorrow night! *g*

I gave up watching Dr Who half way thrugh the first series with Amy and the new Dr. I loved David Tennant and the new Dr annoyed me because he has too much spittle when he is talking!!

I was fine with Matt Smith's first series as much as I missed David Tennant. However, I know my mom has issues with Matt Smith being a little too animated and I don't think she ever liked Amy...Well, I know you weren't the only one who stopped watching last year. I have a horrible feeling that I might be joining you soon -- and I'm speaking as someone who made it through the Colin Baker years and tuned into the new series after watching the travesty that was the Paul McGann movie. *g*

From:

If I'd only known I didn't have to see it with that #$&@in' opening, I might have chosen to watch the show online. However, I was at my parents' place for the first two episodes (as April/early May is a busy time of year for my family), so I didn't really have much choice in the matter as everyone except my sister has been converted. And, hell, I like being able to watch Doctor Who on a bigger screen. Why the #$&@ does SPACE have to keep that shitty opening in there?

From:

And he didn't even give me a purple one. Seriously, if you are going to introduce something as lame brightly coloured daleks at least include purple. *pouts*

I have to be honest and say that I still would have hated them even if they had introduced a purple model. However, it's the principle of the thing. As you've pointed out, if you're going to introduce something as lame as brightly coloured Daleks, you need to include purple. *g*

It does raise the question though -- do red daleks have the same problem as red shirts?

Oh, I wish. At least, then, we'd be able to get rid of some of them.

I tend to watch online so I hadn't known about the "Hi I'm stupid, please explain the concept to me each and every week" opening. Obviously since Dr Who is so new it was a much needed addition. ;)

Yes, it's there every single week as, apparently, we are that stupid. Now, if they had only included it in the first episode of this current series, I'd understand. However, to include it in all of the subsequent episodes is just a big ol' slap in the face.

From:

When two separate people I know talk about not buying the DVD set on the same night. Well, I think it says that there is something in the air. I've seen fans online who like the show now, but most people I know personally are getting a bit turned off.

I don't really see any pedophilia with Amelia. I mean, it's not like the Doctor has slept with any of his companions.

Well, except Rose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8gJvf2a23Q

And possibly Romana.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shYHURehaPA

I'd agree with you about the writing problem on a few different levels. First Amelia worked as a viewpoint character. But adult Amy doesn't work for me. She feels too external, in a way that none of the RTD-era companions did. (Rory is a lot more relatable.)

The timey-wimey stuff has gone on far too long. It's actually not that clever to do that kind of plotting. What is clever is making the audience care about the tricksy plot mechanics. There was a reason to care about Blink - which was also self-contained - not so much with this season long arc. Or honestly last season's arc too.

The big emotions would be the loss of a child - and they haven't really been brave enough to show what I think Amy and Rory's honest reactions should be to that. It all seems so breezy and phony because they won't take the emotions where they need to go. And then maybe a certain fatalism in terms of facing one's death could be interesting. But instead it feels like just generic "how will they get out of that one?"

Both ideas - if taken to the emotional place where they'd be interesting - are probably too adult for a family show. But then why do them if you can't take the ideas where they need to go?

Again, I think the question Steven Moffat needs to ask at this point is "Why should we care?" If he does have an answer, it's not really coming across in the stories.

I think I'm older and less obsessed now, and have less patience that I used to. Last time, I let Dr Who fall very far indeed until I went from big fan to casual viewer.

In fact, here's the story that did it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFHc-RR8hl4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQgaWiXZcZc&feature=related

From:

crew4.livejournal.com

Now, I don't know much about Dr Who, though I do know that you love it.....a lot, and I can completely understand your hatred for the 'Rainbow Daleks'. They remind me of M&M's, and M&M's aren't scary!

From:

My initial reaction was "WHAT promo?!" but as I understand from puckrobin it's not shown here. I'm intrigued though will search for it later on youtube. ;-)

Like you, I loved last night's episode because the focus wasn't on Amy but on the Doctor for once. My problem is that, while with RTD story seemed to drag on and you'd wish for them to speed up the story, with Moffat I often feel left blinking and wondering "That was it?!"

ETA: What I also find odd is that there a story arch spanning an entire season but it's not there in every episode.I mean, there's this thing with the Silence. They were mentioned as early as episode 5x06, Vampires of Venice, and they remained a ominous thread until their sudden easy demise in 6x02, Day of the Moon. And now they're back again?
Moffat may say it all makes sense and we think too much about it but... I'm really losing the plot. :(

From:

karen9.livejournal.com

They look naff and totally unscary! (Not that I find the Daleks scary to start with, probably because I haven't watched Dr. Who.)

From:

I'll just respond to bits of your comment or else I'll run out of room. *g*

I'd agree with you about the writing problem on a few different levels. First Amelia worked as a viewpoint character. But adult Amy doesn't work for me. She feels too external, in a way that none of the RTD-era companions did. (Rory is a lot more relatable.)

I think First Amelia worked excellently as a viewpoint character, especially as we were seeing the Eleventh Doctor (right after his regeneration) through her eyes. And I've wanted to like adult Amy -- and actually did at first -- but I really don't feel much of an emotional connection to her. I'm much more attached to Rory.

The timey-wimey stuff has gone on far too long. It's actually not that clever to do that kind of plotting. What is clever is making the audience care about the tricksy plot mechanics. There was a reason to care about Blink - which was also self-contained - not so much with this season long arc. Or honestly last season's arc too.

I wonder if that's the problem: sustaining those tricksy plot mechanics throughout an entire season. I mean, maybe it works better when it's contained in one or two episodes, though, saying that, I never felt dissatisfied with any timey-wimey stuff for "Blink," "Silence in the Library," and "Forest of the Dead," but, then, I think Moffat took the time to explain things adequately.

The big emotions would be the loss of a child - and they haven't really been brave enough to show what I think Amy and Rory's honest reactions should be to that. It all seems so breezy and phony because they won't take the emotions where they need to go. And then maybe a certain fatalism in terms of facing one's death could be interesting. But instead it feels like just generic "how will they get out of that one?"

I've actually been wondering how Amy and Rory should be feeling about that. Amy is pregnant for all of five minutes (to her knowledge and Rory's) and then loses her baby before she even has an adequate amount of time to bond with her. Then they discover that their baby is River Song, who obviously isn't quite human and zips off again before there can be any real discussion on the topic. I think if I were Amy and Rory, I wouldn't know how to feel other than freaked out!

Both ideas - if taken to the emotional place where they'd be interesting - are probably too adult for a family show. But then why do them if you can't take the ideas where they need to go?

Well, that's just it. If you can't carry an idea through to completion then there's really no point in exploring it.

Again, I think the question Steven Moffat needs to ask at this point is "Why should we care?" If he does have an answer, it's not really coming across in the stories.

As much as people bitch about RTD, he had the ability to get to the emotional crux of a story and make us truly care about his characters. Moffat has done more than an adequate job of proving that he's brilliant at plotting, but I think he needs to put more emphasis on those crucial emotional moments and less on clever plot twists. As you say, he needs to ask himself why the audience should care.

I think I'm older and less obsessed now, and have less patience that I used to. Last time, I let Dr Who fall very far indeed until I went from big fan to casual viewer.

In fact, here's the story that did it...

I think you know this already, but I didn't really have a problem with "Time and the Rani". However, I think I was about 14 or 15 when I saw it and, so, my taste was still developing. I also couldn't stand the Sixth Doctor, so I was happy to see him regenerate. *g* Of course, if I watched the episode now, I might think it was complete crap.

From:

I actually love M&M's, but not in my Sci-Fi -- and certainly not when it comes to Dalek design! *g*

From:

I think that "Time and the Rani" was just the final straw after a couple dismal Colin Baker seasons. I will say that they did redeem his Doctor in some audios where they had better scripts and Colin Baker was putting his all into redeeming his reputation. (I do not think McCoy, Davison and McGann try nearly as hard. But then Davison and McGann are better actors and can be entertaining even when phoning it in. Not so much with McCoy.)

I think that was RTD's greatest strength -- knowing the emotional beats of a story. And with a show like the new version of Doctor Who, I think it's a more valuable skill to have than master plotter.

I just came across a 1995 fanzine interview that Moffat gave where he really does a hatchet job on the classic series. But to be fair, that was the typical 1990s "Doctor Who? Sure, I liked it once, but let me slag it off to prove I'm an adult" attitude, and also he was going through a bad divorce.

From:

My initial reaction was "WHAT promo?!" but as I understand from puckrobin it's not shown here. I'm intrigued though will search for it later on youtube. ;-)

You can find that "North Americans Are Stupid" opening here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6Na7gEs6mY

Like you, I loved last night's episode because the focus wasn't on Amy but on the Doctor for once.

I KNOW! It was, like, watching a real Doctor Who episode! *g*

My problem is that, while with RTD story seemed to drag on and you'd wish for them to speed up the story, with Moffat I often feel left blinking and wondering "That was it?!"

With Moffat, I don't know if it's a matter of assuming audience knowledge that isn't there or if he's just become really lazy at pacing things out. I pride myself on being a fairly intelligent viewer most of the time, but a number of episodes this season have left me feeling lost and confused. I mean, maybe everything will come together and make absolutely perfect sense in the final one or two episodes, but he's taking a pretty big gamble even if this is the case.

ETA: What I also find odd is that there a story arch spanning an entire season but it's not there in every episode.I mean, there's this thing with the Silence. They were mentioned as early as episode 5x06, Vampires of Venice, and they remained a ominous thread until their sudden easy demise in 6x02, Day of the Moon. And now they're back again?

I can actually deal with story arcs that aren't referred to in every episode because I've watched a number of shows (especially in the Sci-Fi genre) that follow this format. However, you bring up an interesting question about the Silence. I'd have to rewatch "Day of the Moon," but I'm assuming that some of the Silence didn't go to Earth and, so, survived.

Moffat may say it all makes sense and we think too much about it but... I'm really losing the plot. :(

A good story should make you think, so, as far as I'm concerned, Moffat is spouting bull*#&@. Okay, it's one thing if your audience is left with unanswered questions (that will hopefully be resolved in later episodes), but if they're having trouble following the plot then I'd say there's a problem.

From:

I'm still waiting for them to address the plot point that the Doctor had put a magical hypnotic whammy on the human race that turns them into genocidal lunatics whenever they see the Silence. I don't see that as triumphant. Unless triumph includes betraying all the ideals of the series.

From:

Oh, if you watched Doctor Who, you would totally find them scary! Check this out:

Oooops...Wrong vid. Uh, try this one:

If you don't find the Daleks scary then let me know and I'll find a vid of the Weeping Angels. Everyone finds them scary. *g*

From:

funkyinfishnet.livejournal.com

I did LOL hard at your post, it made me giggle :) Yeah, I'm not a fan of the multi-coloured Daleks either, thought its not the colours, I don't mind those at all. It's the shapes. There's something weird about them that doesn't feel quite right.

Also yes, Amy Pond is not a great characters. It's a shame cos Karen, who plays her, is such an adorable giggly fun presence in the behind the scenes show 'Doctor Who Confidential.' She and Matt and Arthur are so funny together, it always makes me happy to see that :)

Also yeah I'd pretty much forgive Mark Gattis anything. The man is a dark genius and I adore his Mycroft :)

From:

ROFL @ the Dalek Karaoke - never seen that vid before so thanks for posting it. :)

From:

With Moffat, I don't know if it's a matter of assuming audience knowledge that isn't there or if he's just become really lazy at pacing things out. I pride myself on being a fairly intelligent viewer most of the time, but a number of episodes this season have left me feeling lost and confused. I mean, maybe everything will come together and make absolutely perfect sense in the final one or two episodes, but he's taking a pretty big gamble even if this is the case.

I actually feel a bit insulted when Moffat says that kids don't have a problem with the story line because it's obvioius to them. At points, it's not obvious at all to me, so... does that mean I'm stupid? I know that language is part of my problem but surely...
So like you, I feel lost and confused, although I reckon it'll all make sense at the end. However, it'd be nice not having to wait a full season for things to make sense!

Oh, and at the risk of being exterminated... I like the Amy promo but I'd be annoyed too if it appeared EVERY episode. But then, you and I are familiar with Doctor Who. I reckon the promo might draw in people who are new to the show.
BTW - if you find the time, you might want to check out Being Human (the UK-version), I think you might like it. :)

From:

I'm not familiar with pre-Eccleston Doctor Who so I can't judge those episodes but although I loved Tennant as 10 at first, I realized that it was the story writing that annoyed me up to a point that I was glad 10 was killed and regenerated into 11. After Donna's departure, I found myself screaming "Just kill him off already!" more than once at the screen.

What I liked about Moffat's writing was that he put thought into the plot unlike RTD's "I want this this and this in the episode and I'll somehow weave a fishnet of a plot around it". In the RTD era, Moffat's episodes are the ones I love best and I really liked 11's first season but nowadays I find little satisfaction in watching a DW-episode and I think the confusing plot plus the fact that Amy seems more important than the Doctor are the reason why.

From:

I only just discovered it myself. I'm happy you enjoyed it. Here's another Dalek vid you might find funny:

From:

I actually feel a bit insulted when Moffat says that kids don't have a problem with the story line because it's obvioius to them. At points, it's not obvious at all to me, so... does that mean I'm stupid? I know that language is part of my problem but surely...
So like you, I feel lost and confused, although I reckon it'll all make sense at the end. However, it'd be nice not having to wait a full season for things to make sense!

I would like to see Moffat find one kid (who isn't his own) that has understood everything that has been happening this series. If he can find one then I might concede that I'm a bit thick. *g* Seriously, though, I think everything has been pretty confusing, whether English is your first language or not.

Oh, and at the risk of being exterminated... I like the Amy promo but I'd be annoyed too if it appeared EVERY episode. But then, you and I are familiar with Doctor Who. I reckon the promo might draw in people who are new to the show.

I think the opening is probably meant to help new viewers. However, I don't see why they needed to use it beyond the first episode. I mean, if a new viewer tuned it halfway through the episodes, no explanatory opening in the world is going to help them work out this series' arc! *g*

BTW - if you find the time, you might want to check out Being Human (the UK-version), I think you might like it. :)

I KNOW! I KNOW! I really want to! I actually saw the pilot episode on YouTube and loved it. However, I didn't realize that SPACE had broadcast the first series until it was too late. And, now, SPACE only seems willing to show the crappy North American version. What SPACE needs to do is hold a marathon like the one they had for Merlin. That way I can tape all the episodes and then watch them at my (HA!) leisure.

From: