Doctor who season 7

[Mikey]

It was "ok", but not one of my faves this season so far.

For me it was too much "Pond"

Can't wait till they leave already so we can start anew (hopefully)

[raider5gt]

Liked the Doctor's reference to the Zygons, too.

Yeah I thought they may of popped up in this episode,since the Dr mentions them,there is a rumour they would be in this season but we must not listen to rumours.

It was "ok", but not one of my faves this season so far.

For me it was too much "Pond"

Can't wait till they leave already so we can start anew (hopefully)

That's how I felt Mike,Pondoverdose

It was an ok episode and the Brigadier's daughter,was a nice suprise.

[jds1911a1]

I also have to commend the Who team on their production values.
I've worked as a set dresser and costume maker, I know how much time goes into it, and it all looks very beautifully made.
Gone are the days of wobbly sets and $5 outfits...

as someone who has watched every existing classic episode mutiple times I object to the wobbly set references that get trotted out. it's kind of a stadard slight on the classic show often by thonse who aren't fans of ot. To quote Toby Haddoak find 'specific examples of set wobbledge" I can think of 3 specifc events. While there are some examples of poorly designed sets there are not many wobbly ones. The sets in most pre 85 scifi look just as poor compared to the shows produced after Star trek TNG

[Mikey]

I could never understand when people say Star Trek (the original series) has bad "cardboard" looking sets.

I always thought the inside of the Enterprise looked killer good.

Just because everything was square doesn't mean it was fake looking .... Look at the bridge of any modern day aircraft carrier ...

[Gorn Captain]

as someone who has watched every existing classic episode mutiple times I object to the wobbly set references that get trotted out. it's kind of a stadard slight on the classic show often by thonse who aren't fans of ot. To quote Toby Haddoak find 'specific examples of set wobbledge" I can think of 3 specifc events. While there are some examples of poorly designed sets there are not many wobbly ones. The sets in most pre 85 scifi look just as poor compared to the shows produced after Star trek TNG

Who knew the word "wobbly" would elicit such a strong reaction!
As a big fan of vintage Who (and yes, I've seen every episode out on DVD), I'll still have to insist that there were wobbly sets. I've been watching Who since 1975, and in those days, they were sometimes wobbly. In the 80s, they were very wobbly.
What I meant is that very often, you could see that set designers were working on a low budget. That doesn't take away that I love vintage Who more than anything.

[Mikey]

It was a surprise seeing Brian Cox do a cameo.

I love his specials on the Discovery and Science channels

[ctc]

>I could never understand when people say Star Trek (the original series) has bad "cardboard" looking sets.

Part of the problem with the nerdly arts is that there's always a current "state of the art" to the effects technology, which leads to there being a dominant "this is the RIGHT way to do it!" mentality amongst the creators and fans. For the last decade or so spaceships are dark, with lots of latticework, mesh and inexplicable catwalks. The clean, spartan look to older shows (which was partly due to the conventions of the time, and partly due to effects and budget limits) is considered "wrong" in that it's different from what we expect these days. Neither is REALLY right or wrong, but people get used to things and develop certain expectations.

I've always liked the old Trek designs. If you had super-science stuff WOULD look simple and clean 'cos you wouldn't need all the sticky-outie bits and weird fidgets. (Principle of combat #134: all things being equal, the side with the simpler uniforms wins.)

I've also always loved the old Who monsters.... even the sillier ones like the Nimon. There's a certain inescapable look to them. Not that I mind seeing updates with new effects; but I MUCH prefer if they keep the same look when updating. (My litmus test for the quality of an upgrade: if I don't have to guess what it is, it's a success.)

Don C.

[jds1911a1]

Gorn Capt

I have every dvd release and all the prior VHS ones so that's what I mean by every exisiting episode.
Yes I am passionate about this maybe becuase in the US I had to defend Who all through the 80's because of the modern effects and budget for Star wars films and Star trek TNG and it's spioffs.
Conversely I think the sets design in shows like Babylon 5 look cheesy and they were made in the era against STTNG. Any Scifi has to be judged against the production values of the same era. If you compare lost in space to Who 63-70 it's about the same and I think Who wins out. Star trek is better but it was also a mich higher budget, made in the us, shot on film and was a failed show which became a cult hit (like firefly) while who chugged along for decades. 70's who is just as good as Space 1999 or UFO or Buck rogers without the luxury or recycling footage every episode (Battlestar Galactica was film quality in the sets but galctica 1980 was terrible)
Like I say I'm with Toby Hadoak in that it's a generalized argument and for your statement it's expanded as a way to generally critizice the look or production value of the JNT era. Wobbly is refers to sets that move when struck/bumped into (in Carnival of Monsters space port doors and The chase underground wall in ep 2 I can immediatly recall set movement) as opposed to poorly made (see the roundels about Turlogh's head in Enlightement ep1 when he's in communication with the black guardian they look like they were cut from plywood and with out much care) or poorly designed (see the black hole universe of OMEGA in The Three Doctors) or poor effects (CSO shots in underworld, robot and Seeds of Doom) for instance or the laser blasts for the Davison era in general) or poor monsters (the Murker, donos in Invasion of the Dinosaurs, Omega's gelloids in 3 Doctors, and Full Kryniod in Seeds of Doom) or just looking like it was done to save money (delta and the Bannermen)

[jwyblejr]

"If you don't get a lump in your throat from the ending,you must be an alien" -Matt Smith.

I guess I'm an alien.

[Mikey]

i liked the finale ... to my surprise

no throat lump though

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

Not one of my faves, but it was entertaining. I kinda felt it should have been two episdoes though; they set up something pretty serious with the monsters, but didn't get into it too much. I would have liked to see more on how and what the bad guys were doing.

....for instance the whole "your girlfriend?/put him in the cellar with the babies" thing. Or the special guest monster.

Don C.

[Bruce Banner]

Not a bad episode. Decent send off for Amy & Rory.
I liked them, but am certainly now looking forward to the new companion.

The show should go back to half hour episodes, multi-part stories, with cliffhangers at the end of each episode, in my opinion.
But it'll never happen.

[MEMEGO]

Wow, I can't believe its been 5 weeks since, I started this thread, Time sure does fly, Well here is a condensed review of season 7 part one.
Angels take Manhattan was a good episode, not a great one, but a good one, not the best of the season, I give that to Asylum of the Daleks or A town called Mercy or Dinosaurs On A Spaceship, The weakest one in my option was The Power Of Three. I read that they were going for a big tear jerker which would be remebered by fans and cried to when seen bby fans and viewers years down the line, I think the title holder for this is still the first Goodbye of Tennant and Billie. What do ya all think? do ya all agree? do ya all disagree? let me know.

[wolfie]

What i don't understand about the Angels. They can only attack you if you blink or look away so why do people run off when they see one? They could just walk straight past it looking at it, turning as they go past and the thing could not move.

[Mikey]

I loved that Statue of Liberty angel but I didn't understand it.

Is it the REAL Statue of Liberty ? ...

Also, I find it very hard to believe the Statue of Liberty could walk the streets of NYC and nobody looks at it (even at night)