MovieChat Forums > Doctor Who (2023) Discussion > Thoughts on episode 1 and 2

Thoughts on episode 1 and 2

posted 7 months ago by peter_t_2k3 (1050)
22 replies | jump to latest

Episode 1 was okay. Basically an introduction episode. The story was a bit odd but okay.

My only issue was really the opening scene in the TARDIS where the doctor basically reads his wikipedia article. I get they are trying to explain the basics to the new audiences but when the show first came back in 2005 even in the first episode Rose, stuff was gradually explained. The doctor didn't just give his full history like that. It just felt very wooden.

I did like the dinosaur scene.

Episode 2 was interesting and Jinx monsoon played maestro great. It was a bit cheesy but also different. I enjoyed the fact this wasn't your typical monster. Yes they killed them pretty easy but the way they used also made sense logically.

Also enjoyed the scene of the doctor showing Ruby what the future will be if they don't fix things which harks back to a scene with the 4th doctor showing Sarah Jane Smith what would happen if they don't stop Sutekh in pyramids of mars.

The end musical scene was a bit cheesy.

The doctor and ruby seem to work well together, good chemistry.

I want to see more of an angry 15 as it's been mainly his playful side so far.

[–] asom (6832) 7 months ago

"I did like the dinosaur scene."

Was a fun scene. But was nullified in the next episode.

When they got in the present and she asked "but why am I still here?" and the doctor responded "you are with me, tardis protects you from the consequences" or something like that.

But the same tardis did NOT protect her in the dinosaurs scene???

[–] peter_t_2k3 (1050) 7 months ago

I presume it was because she was the one who stood on the butterfly although the doctor did say in a jokingly way he had then turned the butterfly protection on or something. Not sure if it's real why it was turned off.

But often it depends if it's personal.

[–] asom (6832) 7 months ago

It shouldn’t matter… there was a change in the past that affected her, then it didn’t …

[–] peter_t_2k3 (1050) 7 months ago

The doctor changes things all the time though but the doctor has always said that changing personal timelines is different. That is why he tells Ruby they cannot go to her birth as if she accidentally changes it she wouldn't be born and cause a paradox.

I think the butterfly scene was mainly there for a joke but if the button he pressed was real then he's stopped that from happening but when it comes to personal timelines that is still dangerous

[–] hurricane (1960) 6 months ago

Episode 1 was okay, but not brilliant for me.

I think, as a long time viewer, the exposition felt like overload. But, I can see why they did it. They're trying to explain the show to the new fans in the Disney+ era. So it was necessary, but jarring for people who already know the show.

Though technically his second episode, this felt like the story that introduced the new Doctor more than The Christmas Episode did. (Which seeme more interested in introducing Ruby, and establishing her story.)

The Space Babies felt like a weird idea, and the villain wasn't massively fleshed out as a character. But that's okay for an introductory episode where they're establishing The Doctor. Because the story is a bit in the background, whilst we're establishing the new Doctor. I don't think the Space Babies is anything we ever need to revisit, but as a background story it was okay. Most of the stories/villains in a Doctor's first new episode never really feature again. Them being background to an introduction is kind of the point.

I wasn't sold on The Beatles episode. I didn't really like Maestro as an enemy. It felt like a retread of The Toy Maker episode. Which, I know is deliberate because they're hinting at it leading to something. But, there's only so many times you can hype somebody up as being damn near unbeatable, and then defeat them with a contrived plot device. The Toy Maker being treated as god-like, then getting defeated by a game of catch felt silly. But at least NPH had the charisma to pull it off, and The Toy Maker abiding to the rules of the game was in character. Maybe they could've defeated him with a game more complicated than a game of catch, but hey ho. Here, The Doctor phyiscally ran and hid, and quivered that there was no ways he could win. Then in the end, Maestro was defeated and all their evil was undone because somebody played the piano.

[–] hurricane (1960) 6 months ago

Having said that, I do like Ncuti as The Doctor and Millie Gibson as Ruby Sunday. I think they both have the needed charisma, and have a chemistry with each other.

They're trying to play Ncuti as being more positive a chracter, after years of The Doctor mourning The Time Lords. That's not a bad thing. Though, I do wonder if they're overdoing it. Do we really need a song and dance number in every episode?

When The Toy Maker did that Spice Girls number, it felt in chracter. And NPH had the charisma to pull it off in a camp way, whilst still looking menacing. To a less extent, The Master doing Ra-Ra-Rasputin was the same. By the time you'd got to The Church On Ruby Road, and The Goblins all doing that song, it felt out of place. And was so poorly written a song, it was almost funny. The characters all doing a big dance number at the end, just for the sake of them making a silly; "twist at the end" joke added nothing, even to a song that was about music.

But I find Ncuti to already to be an improvement on Whittaker. Who I thought was a bit miscast in the role, though she tried hard. And, in he defence, was given terrible scripts to work with. I am at least enjoying Ncuti,

And now I mention the music, the whole; "I'm going to eradicate all music, and then the world will eventually come to an end" felt a bit underwhelming as a plot. Felt like it belonged more in a 1960s Batman epsidoe, or an 80s dance like Flashdance or something.

[–] hurricane (1960) 6 months ago

May just be a coincidence, or badly planning, but in Space Babies The Doctor comments that he was scared of the monster, and that felt unusual for him. In the next episode, he acted like there was nothing he could do to stop the villain, then went off to hide whilst sulking for a while that he had given up.

Ruby quipped that he wasn't the score to hide, but I wondered what she was basing that on? It's all he seems to have been doing so far this season.

[–] peter_t_2k3 (1050) 6 months ago

I agree with most of your points. I do also wonder as some have speculated if the exposition dump was Disney saying they need a quick scene to explain who the doctor was. I just think it feels a bit off putting and could have been integrated better.

The episode itself was just that though, off putting. I feel they could have done a better opener.

I did like the next episode just for being a bit different. I do like when the doctor isn't the most powerful person but get your point about how it will get a bit tiresome if the doctor can defeat them all, the feeling of threat will diminish. The ball game was a weak way for the toy maker to go but I do feel maestro is not dead just banished again and it makes sense if a melody can bring them out it can also banish then.

There's also a lot of weird stuff that seems to point to the doctor and Ruby being on a show. The twist think is linked to the actress Susan twist who has been in every episode seemingly playing someone else and there's a lot of winks to camera. Murray gold was also in the musical at the end apparently and the old women who died was actually played by a former costume designer on the show who also designed the 4th doctor's outfit. Not sure how I feel if it's going to keep being this meta

[–] hurricane (1960) 6 months ago

I understand the reason of the exposition, and I guess getting most of it out of the way in the opening episode was better than keep doing it all series, for the sake of the new fans. It'd get tedious if every week they had a convuluted conversation, where we learn something new about The Doctor. Because long time fans will already know all of it.

It may seem like I am moaning, but I do enjoy Ncuti's Doctor and Ruby Sunday. More so than I enjoyed Whittaker as Doctor. So I am hoping to see the series find it's stride more.

[–] peter_t_2k3 (1050) 6 months ago

I think that's one of the things about new companions, they do need to learn about the doctor, but usually it's the basic he's a time traveller etc.

I also thought the bomb exploded and killed all life on Gallifrey but now are they suggesting it killed all time lords? Surely not all time lords would be on the planet so I don't get why they are doing the last of the time lords kind of thing again

[–] hurricane (1960) 6 months ago

I didn't think of that, but you're right. Why would we assume that with the power of instant and unlimited travel in space and time all Time Lords would be on Galifrey at the time of the bomb? I think we were supposed to believe that we were all gone, but I see your point. It's a bit illogical when you put it like that.

I never liked the second killing of The Time Lords. I didn't really see the point of it. When you discovered in the 50th that they weren't really gone, that felt consistent with what had gone before. It felt like a progression of the story that had gone before. The Doctor thinking they were dead for a few seasons, and then finding out that he'd been wrong felt natural story telling. Having The Master blow them up again felt like it was done for no reason. If he didn't want The Time Lords in any of his stories, he didn't have to write them in. They were easily ignored for his time there, and nobody would've even thought about it if he didn't feature them. So why kill them at all?

I guess it was to go with The Timeless Child storyline. But that was a terrible storyline. After 50-odd years of story telling, it reeks of arrogance for Chibnall to just decide the character wasn't a Time Lord any more. I guess you could argue that it solves the problem of The Doctor having limited regenerations. But that wasn't a problem that had needed solving at the time, nor would it for many years yet. The Doctor already had multiple lives left when Chibnall was writing. Why do that at all? Other than to make your mark on the show before you left. And it wasn't even with a story line anybody liked.

[–] peter_t_2k3 (1050) 6 months ago

The thing is we always knew the show would find a way to get around the regeneration limit but I feel the doctor should not know this.

By making the doctor have seemingly no limit it just takes away threat and tension. If he has a limited number of lives then he's going to use it wisely and each regeneration is important and a loss. Making the doctor basically have unlimited regenerations removes the urgency, the theat etc. if he dies, oh well it's just one of an unlimited amount of life's he uses.

[–] hurricane (1960) 6 months ago

"I did like the next episode just for being a bit different. I do like when the doctor isn't the most powerful person but get your point about how it will get a bit tiresome if the doctor can defeat them all, the feeling of threat will diminish. The ball game was a weak way for the toy maker to go but I do feel maestro is not dead just banished again and it makes sense if a melody can bring them out it can also banish then."

It's not so much that The Doctor defeats them. Or even the way they were defeated. It's more how easily they defeated Maestro, after they bigged him up as near undefeatable. Take when The Master first came back in the New Who era. (Series 3). People complained that he was banished by everybody saying; "Doctor" and Tennant just sort of being resurrected. But at least with that, it was a two-parter and The Master had been made look difficult to beat in Part One. And Martha had had a year to travel the Earth to set it up his loss.

Obviously, The Master was an already established villain, and you can't necessarily waste a two-part on every new villain. But it felt like The Doctor was quivvering from Maeestro for a lot of the episode, only for Maestro to be defeated by finding the correct chord on a piano. I get that it technically wasn't The Doctor who saved him, but the musical genius of The Beatles or whatever. But I just felt that they could've done it better. Maybe, instead of having The Doctor act so scared of him, they could've done more with The Beatles being there, and more to do with them being the only people who could save them. The Doctor could've persuaded them, and trained them. At least The Doctor would've looked like he was doing something proactive, rather than just quiverring from the awesome might of Maestro.

But, hey. I'm not a writer.

[–] peter_t_2k3 (1050) 6 months ago

Yeah I think the episode wasn't helped by the fact the Beatles looked nothing like the Beatles and due to the costs they didn't have any Beatles music.

A podcast also pointed out that the villains reason for killing music was also odd. If it feeds on music then surely removing it would actually starve them.

I'm not as bothered about the villain been stopped by a tune as it was what also brought it into this universe. If they keep doing the fully powerful thing all season though it would get tiresome

[–] capuchin (3187) 6 months ago

I'm increasingly concerned about Disneyfication. There's a chirpy 'wholesomeness' to it that feels very plasticky and jarringly House of Mouse. I don't much care for it.

But I like Gatwa and I like Gibson and I'm going to let the season play out before I start moaning too much about 'bloody Americans.'

Also: Moffat's episode is up next. If that doesn't inject a little of the required tonal darkness, nothing will.

[–] peter_t_2k3 (1050) 6 months ago

Yeah 100 percent agree. I quite liked series 2, at least conceptually, but the ending song was a bit cheesy, but the first episode wasn't a great first episode

[–] RipRoss (557) 6 months ago

Yes, the show is more kid-friendly and trans-friendly than ever. The Disney agenda is in full play here.

[–] capuchin (3187) 6 months ago

Well, no. The show has always been 'kid friendly', because it's always been a kid's show. And being 'trans-friendly' isn't a 'Disney agenda'.

That's not what a British person would ever mean by 'Disneyfication'. We're not part of your US 'culture wars'. We find them tiresome and just a little juvenile. Don't try to involve us in your nonsense.

I meant by Disneyfication what I said I meant by Disneyfication: the plastic, chirpy wholesomeness. There is a darkness to European children's storytelling which is usually absent in American children's storytelling -- and especially that made by the Walt Disney Company. That's what I was referring to: the corporate sheen of the House of Mouse. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

[–] RipRoss (557) 6 months ago

By more "kid-friendly", I was referring to much of the same that you speak of. Disney wants to appeal to a young market for the show in the US. If this doesn't apply to the European market, then fair enough.

Disney is very much pursuing a trans-friendly and LGBTQ-friendly agenda. If it isn't obvious enough from their content, they have stated it is their goal as a company is to work to repeal laws that restrict the topic gender identity from children's classrooms. They have removed the phrase "ladies, gentlemen, boys, and girls" from their theme parks for the benefit of transgender children. There is also leaked company video of a Disney production coordinator saying that they are committed to creating content with "gender nonconforming characters" and "canonical trans characters".

I was just bouncing off your comments to make my own observation about the show. There was no intent to put words in your mouth or to misrepresent what you were saying.

In the future, if I'm commenting in a thread, I will make sure I am not replying to you since you clearly don't like divergent conversation.

[–] capuchin (3187) 6 months ago

You're talking about American 'culture war' politics to a British person. Frankly, I couldn't give a flying fuck. Didn't ask. Don't care. Why do you people have to infect every single topic with your nonsense?

I've explained to you what I meant by Disneyfication. It has nothing to do with anything you're talking about. Your religious-inflected prejudices are of no interest to me whatsoever. Go and tell it one of your backwards little fundamentalist Christian friends -- they might have more patience with that atavistic shite.

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

What's laughable is that they act like they're forced to only watch Disney-related content.

[–] capuchin (3187) 6 months ago

You'd be amazed (read: you would not be at all amazed) how little impact the Walt Disney Company or any of its subsidiaries has ever had on my life as a film and TV viewer.