• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Demons of the Punjab grade and discussion thread

How do you rate Demons of the Punjab?

  • Total voters
    86
Starkers said:
^It was three time zones I believe, something like 1968, 2018 and 2068.

Probably good job they didn't given a certain poster decided this would be THE WORST IDEA EVER! (obviously without seeing a single episode) :lol:
Click to expand...

America gave that idea a go.

It failed.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Mr Awe said:
I don't see the resemblance to Tennant myself. Personally, I think she's perfect in the role. She's got a nice alien quirkiness. And, she is funny, but it's in an understated quirky manner.
Click to expand...
Although I do see some Tennant in her, I agree with the rest - she's got a great fish out of water quirkiness which reminds me of some of the classic doctors and early Capaldi (although his quirk was usually arseholery which didn't play so endearingly).
 
I'm mystified by people saying she should be doing 'Doctor' things. She has repeatedly built things, including the new sonic, like a proper scientist. She gets gooey eyed over a Hadron collider, and is genuinely interested in history. She's geeky in a true "doctor" way, not just finding something useful the TARDIS.
 
Starkers said:
I think Moffat's had quite enough of Who, much like RTD. Chibnall is a decent showrunner and he isn't a terrible writer, but he isn't as good a writer as either of his predecessors and, maybe more importantly, he isn't a showman in the way either RTD or Moff were. to be honest if nothing else I'd expect his episodes to be more evenly spaced in his second season, rather than front loading them all as he did this year. I can understand his thinking, wanting to lay the ground work for his Doctor, but as I say he just isn't as good a writer as he maybe thinks he is.

I'd be surprised if Jodie isn't the Doctor for at least 2, and more likely 3 years.
Click to expand...

That sort of comes down to a big problem with Chibnall. Is a solid writer and show creator but your basically replacing what I consider one of the best writers around. At least Whitaker had a little bit of luck in following a doctor who I think people warmed up to but maybe never became anyones favorite. Imagine her following Tennant or Matt Smith and also having Chibnall along as well.

Jason
 
I'm not impressed by the themes of the shows so far all the virtue signalling is like going to school. There's a sense of the amateur about the writing, it's terribly predictable. And the villains are pedestrian. I guess this is why some of us are disappointed this season feels very small universe.
 
Jayson1 said:
What I wonder if they will change the tone of the show in season 2. Many people weren't happy with Capaldi in his first season when he was all cranky so I wonder if they will make alterations in the next season.
Click to expand...
The thing is, the reason changes were made in Capaldi's second year is because Capaldi didn't like playing a cranky and grumpy Doctor and requested he be changed to being more personable and pleasant. At the moment, I'm certain Whittaker is fine with how her Doctor is written, so there probably won't be any changes in that regard.

If anything, I suspect next season we'll likely see some aliens returning. And I'm almost certain that the Daleks are at the top of the list.
Jayson1 said:
You know what I kind of miss was that old idea the show was going to be set in two different time periods. One in the past and one in the present and we would kind of have two different versions of the Doctor. Whatever happened to that idea?
Click to expand...
It was only a rumour and clearly false.
 
"Why is everything always in London? Earth is more than just London and England!"

Doctor Who: Here are episodes about Rosa Parks and the Partition of India

"No, not like that!"

I've been enjoying the hell out of this season. Honestly, I didn't know the history of Pakistan and India until this week's episode, and I'm thrilled that kids are learning history from The Doctor.
 
Refuge said:
I'm not impressed by the themes of the shows so far all the virtue signalling is like going to school. There's a sense of the amateur about the writing, it's terribly predictable. And the villains are pedestrian. I guess this is why some of us are disappointed this season feels very small universe.
Click to expand...

"virtue signalling."

Yeah, because there really is a debate whether or not being a racist is a bad thing. :rolleyes:
 
Revdkathy said:
I'm mystified by people saying she should be doing 'Doctor' things. She has repeatedly built things, including the new sonic, like a proper scientist. She gets gooey eyed over a Hadron collider, and is genuinely interested in history. She's geeky in a true "doctor" way, not just finding something useful the TARDIS.
Click to expand...
I'm sure we each define "Doctor things" in different ways. So, it's not surprising we'll have different points of view. What I mean is that she's changing the course of events and saving the day in the face of strong antagonists. I love her, but her stories haven't been like that. It goes beyond building stuff and valuing science.
 
Professor Zoom said:
"virtue signalling."

Yeah, because there really is a debate whether or not being a racist is a bad thing. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

To be fair that isn't how the concept of virtue signalling works. The idea is built around the idea of someone trying to make themselves look good by somehow showing how great they are as a person and how better they are than others. Basically it's a fancy way of saying someone is bragging about themselves. Which works I guess on the internet but not so sure it works so sound of a idea in scripted drama. Especially since most people couldn't tell you who the writer is of half of the tv shows they watch.

I think you can make arguments of pandering when it comes to tv. But to be honest the only difference between pandering and someone expressing a idea via drama or comedy is quality. If they do a good job it feels like they hit the head on a issue. If they do a bad job it gets called pandering. With these idea's along with Political correctness it always comes down to quality. If you do a good job people don't care. If you do a bad job people find it pretensious or preachy.

I think the episode didn't feel preachy IMO. I didn't feel like I was pandering. I even liked learning something new. To me it only failed because the characters I was interested in was a sidelined and maybe that also wouldn't have been a big issue if it didn't feel like it's happening alot. I mean I really like the "Gods and Monsters" episode many years ago and the Doctor was barely in it. Not to mention maybe one of the greates ep's in "Blink." Difference is they also felt kind of unique instead of the status quo.

Also this is something older fans can answer but was this how these older shows flowed as well back when the show was more educational? Also the fact that you had a older many who can run around and do action stuff compared to younger woman and cast also must change what people expect. How was the action adventure stuff played out in those older days?


Jason
 
Revdkathy said:
I'm mystified by people saying she should be doing 'Doctor' things. She has repeatedly built things, including the new sonic, like a proper scientist. She gets gooey eyed over a Hadron collider, and is genuinely interested in history. She's geeky in a true "doctor" way, not just finding something useful the TARDIS.
Click to expand...
I think they mean being a man. So far that’s the only difference.

Professor Zoom said:
"virtue signalling."

Yeah, because there really is a debate whether or not being a racist is a bad thing. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Some people didn’t get that memo.
 
Jayson1 said:
To be fair that isn't how the concept of virtue signalling works. The idea is built around the idea of someone trying to make themselves look good by somehow showing how great they are as a person and how better they are than others. Basically it's a fancy way of saying someone is bragging about themselves. Which works I guess on the internet but not so sure it works so sound of a idea in scripted drama. Especially since most people couldn't tell you who the writer is of half of the tv shows they watch.

I think you can make arguments of pandering when it comes to tv. But to be honest the only difference between pandering and someone expressing a idea via drama or comedy is quality. If they do a good job it feels like they hit the head on a issue. If they do a bad job it gets called pandering. With these idea's along with Political correctness it always comes down to quality. If you do a good job people don't care. If you do a bad job people find it pretensious or preachy.

I think the episode didn't feel preachy IMO. I didn't feel like I was pandering. I even liked learning something new. To me it only failed because the characters I was interested in was a sidelined and maybe that also wouldn't have been a big issue if it didn't feel like it's happening alot. I mean I really like the "Gods and Monsters" episode many years ago and the Doctor was barely in it. Not to mention maybe one of the greates ep's in "Blink." Difference is they also felt kind of unique instead of the status quo.

Also this is something older fans can answer but was this how these older shows flowed as well back when the show was more educational? Also the fact that you had a older many who can run around and do action stuff compared to younger woman and cast also must change what people expect. How was the action adventure stuff played out in those older days?


Jason
Click to expand...
Half way through and the virtue signalling is heavy handed. It feels like history lessons with back patting.
 
Refuge said:
I'm not impressed by the themes of the shows so far all the virtue signalling is like going to school. There's a sense of the amateur about the writing, it's terribly predictable. And the villains are pedestrian. I guess this is why some of us are disappointed this season feels very small universe.
Click to expand...
I don't know I like a change from the constantly having to out do itself over the top universe ending ultimate battles of good against evil. Don't get me wrong I hope Jodie gets one in her run and isn't just doing small stories like this non stop but it allows the show to get back to just telling the stories they want to tell rather than feeling like they have to out do itself every season. Davies always had to one up the season ending guest villain and Moffat always had to be "cleverer" than his last finale plot twist thing.

Awesome Possum said:
I think they mean being a man. So far that’s the only difference.
Click to expand...
I think that's a little unfair. I'm sure there are people like that but as someone who feels that this season is streets ahead of what Moffat was doing for pretty much his entire run even I can see and appreciate the change in the character. Could you see Tennant having such a back seat in a story or would he have given us some overly dramatic monologue and flung his screw driver around like a loaded hand gun?
tumblr_mwugi3RbHk1qd3no2o3_250.gif


Refuge said:
Half way through and the virtue signalling is heavy handed. It feels like history lessons with back patting.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree, while the Rosa Parks might be fairly well known history this one wasn't and I appreciate whenever sci-fi does time travel and doesn't go to one of the "big ones" like JFK or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top