# Doctor Who - Death in Heaven (OAD 11/8/2014)



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I felt this was pretty good, up until Missy's master plan was revealed. The plan made little sense, especially compared to how the Master acted the last time we saw him. As such the ending was anti-climactic. 

Also I'm fairly certain a single shot from a Cyberman isn't enough to kill a Time Lord as we've seen them survive being shot by a Dalek, so I don't think Missy is dead. 

The ending was okay, with both the Doctor and Clara lying and pretending everything was going well for them. Not sure what to make of the Christmas episode having Santa Claus in it though.

Overall though a rather disappointing season.


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

I was disappointed in the episode and the season. It's a shame because I think Capaldi could do such a fantastic job with the role. 

But yay Nick Frost!


----------



## Linnemir (Apr 7, 2009)

I really love Capaldi! He reminds me of some of the older Doctors (Baker, Pertwee, and Hartnell to be specific), yet is very separate from them. A good job of carrying the past into the present!

I got teary-eyed at the references to the Brig. Great hat-tip there!

As to the Master? I do not feel that the 'modern' era has done justice to the Master other than Sir Derek's brief appearance. He was EVIL, dagnabbit. Missy just struck me as silly; she trivialized all the evil genius of the originals.

Enjoyable ep and season!


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Liked the force reconnaissance unit hiding a weapon in a pram.

Did not like Osgood being pulverised - I hope her poking at Missy's weapon resulted in it not working properly.


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

Ugh. This is one of the worst seasons ever, IMO. And I'm counting Sylvester McCoy's seasons in there. The arc was horrible and the individual episodes were uninspired and just plain lacking in entertainment value. I've been watching Doctor Who for 40 years. This is a season I will never re-watch. There isn't a single episode I'm interested in revisiting.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Dark Water was excellent. This was (like so many others this season) - a jumbled mess. It had good parts. It had terribly predictable parts. And it had many parts that were pure Meh, all mixed together.

Other seasons had episodes and plot points scattered through them that on first viewing were sortof meh, but all came together at the end. This one, it tried, but kinda missed the mark. It made the references back to the rest of the season appear forced, instead of pivotal.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Linnemir said:


> Missy just struck me as silly; she trivialized all the evil genius of the originals.


I agree, although she was a big step up from John Simm.

No offense to John Simm, but he was even sillier than she. Clearly, the Modern Regime simply doesn't GET the Master.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

kdmorse said:


> Dark Water was excellent. This was (like so many others this season) - a jumbled mess. It had good parts. It had terribly predictable parts. And it had many parts that were pure Meh, all mixed together.


I pretty much agree with this.

I have enjoyed every episode, some more than others. I don't like the Doctor or the stories as much as I liked Matt Smith, there was more emotion in there somehow. This was one of the better finales since the show returned.

I really think people need to watch some old shows if they think this is the worst


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

JohnB1000 said:


> I pretty much agree with this.
> 
> I have enjoyed every episode, some more than others. I don't like the Doctor or the stories as much as I liked Matt Smith, there was more emotion in there somehow. This was one of the better finales since the show returned.
> 
> I really think people need to watch some old shows if they think this is the worst


I've watched the old shows, many many times over.

This is among the worst of the worst. It's definitely the worst of the new era, and I hated Matt Smith. I don't hate Capaldi but the scripts he's been given have been crap.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

JoBeth66 said:


> I've watched the old shows, many many times over.
> 
> This is among the worst of the worst. It's definitely the worst of the new era, and I hated Matt Smith. I don't hate Capaldi but the scripts he's been given have been crap.


Moffat has been horrible over all as show runner. He's written some brilliant episodes, some of my favorites, but even the ones he's written since taking over as show runner have fallen flat.
Capaldi is excellent as the Doctor, but like you said, his material has been less than decent.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

A rather Meh finale. The master's plot made very little sense, and the writing was not the best. I do love Capaldi as the Doctor, and I hope they can come up with some worthy scripts and writing for him next season.

Clara was good in this, and I even liked Danny Pink. Though I don't think him and Clara have the same chemistry as Amy and Rory or Rose and Mickey.

I happened to catch the Caretaker earlier in the day and I loved how the Doctor could not assimilate Danny as a Maths teacher. 

All in all, an uneven season for one of the best actors to play the Doctor.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

pgogborn said:


> Did not like Osgood being pulverised - I hope her poking at Missy's weapon resulted in it not working properly.


One of the after-affects of getting a smartphone is that I discovered my cable provider allows me to stream some BBC America shows via their Android app. Most of the episodes with David Tennant have scrolled off the On-Demand list by now, except for _The Day of the Doctor_, which I have now re-watched many times.

Because of that, I was especially annoyed at what happened to Osgood in this episode.

It's annoying to be so delighted in the small things in an episode (like Osgood showing up in a bow tie instead of the scarf, or the salute to the Brigadier) and so disappointed in the big ones (e.g. the plot).


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

morac said:


> ... Missy's master plan ...


I see what you did there 

This season was pretty meh.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

I'm really peeved that they fridged Osgood, doubly so since Moffat was nearly gleeful about it in the extra.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

One comment I read online suggested that Moffat was taking after Joss Whedon in the way that he killed off Osgood. That's far from a fair description. Joss has never been afraid to kill a character, so long as it serves the greater good of the story, or if it serves to motivate an action in or a development of another character or characters. Here, it was a meaningless death. It happened, and was barely acknowledged after. It had zero material impact on the events of the episode.

I agree with others that there were a few good moments. For example, I enjoyed watching Clara attempting to masquerade as the Doctor... it reminded me of her lightning quick-thinking that really made her an enjoyable character in "The Snowmen" and "Asylum of the Daleks." I also agree with others that overall, the episode was a jumbled mess with a conclusion that didn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.

Was I the only one who thought that this iteration of the Cyberman costume was really cheesy looking, like classic Who cheesy? It didn't look metallic to me at all... it looked more like what it likely was, puffy extruded foam painted silver over some sort of silver lamé undershirt.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> One comment I read online suggested that Moffat was taking after Joss Whedon in the way that he killed off Osgood. That's far from a fair description. Joss has never been afraid to kill a character, so long as it serves the greater good of the story, or if it serves to motivate an action in or a development of another character or characters. Here, it was a meaningless death. It happened, and was barely acknowledged after. It had zero material impact on the events of the episode.


Well, that could just mean that Moffat is no Joss Whedon...

It's too bad...I was so excited when Moffat was announced as showrunner, in that he always seemed to be the best part of Davies' tenure. But as somebody suggested above, he seems to be much more effective as somebody else's writer. Neither Smith nor (especially) Capaldi has been as well-served as they deserved.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Shakhari said:


> I see what you did there


I almost added "no pun intended" there, almost.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I think Capaldi does a fine job with what he's given. Too bad its not the best material.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, that could just mean that Moffat is no Joss Whedon...
> 
> It's too bad...I was so excited when Moffat was announced as showrunner, in that he always seemed to be the best part of Davies' tenure. But as somebody suggested above, he seems to be much more effective as somebody else's writer. Neither Smith nor (especially) Capaldi has been as well-served as they deserved.


It won't be the first time nor the last that anyone has said so, but you can count me in as part of the camp that thinks Moffat is better as a writer, where he can be restrained by someone else.

Total agreement that Capaldi has been extremely ill-served this season, and I wouldn't argue too hard against Matt Smith, either.

I would class myself as a New Whovian -- I had a lot of exposure to classic who over the years (primarily Baker and Davison), enough that I knew about the Daleks and a lot of things before I started watching New Who. I knew enough to appreciate the impact when they brought back Sarah Jane ("School Reunion" is one of my favorite episodes of all time).

But an odd thing happened.

In a lot of respects, Christopher Eccleston was my 'first doctor'. I got used to him, and then when his season was over, David Tennant came along. And it took me a while to get used to him. People said how much better he was than Eccleston and I wasn't seeing it.

Eventually Tennant won me over. And in the hiatus between seasons, I went back and binge-watched some of the classic Who (mostly cherry-picking the episodes with Sarah Jane in them). I also watched _The Sarah Jane adventures_ and enjoyed them.

Then came the 2nd 'reboot' with RTD stepping down and Moffat taking over.

And I found I liked _Matt Smith_ right away. Had no trouble accepting him as The Doctor. Got on board with Amy and Rory as companions. But the storylines, not so much.

And now we have Capaldi taking over, and once again, I was quite ready to accept him as the new Doctor, could see that he was bringing in aspects of the Doctor from the Classic days. I was enjoying the fan stuff where longer-term fans pointed out he was doing this as an homage to Baker and this an homage to one of the other classic Doctors and so on.

But again, the storylines -- not so much.

(Somewhere along the way, I also watched all the episodes of _The Doctor Revisited_ with their companion episodes, so I've had some exposure to everyone by now.)

It's not that I can't stand things with long setups. Quite the opposite. If I like the characters or actors in a show -- or more to the point, if I'm enjoying the particular performance of an actor, when he or she hits that sweet spot where the casting of that particular actor for that particular character seems _perfect_ -- I can tolerate quite a lot. I was a fan of Babylon 5 -- I am no stranger to the long story arc.

But if you expect me to stick around that long, I want the payoff to be worth it.

So far, Moffat's story arcs haven't satisfied. I felt the same way about Matt Smith's seasons, and even more so with this one.

I wish Moffat would quit acting like a playground bully who happens to have gotten possession of everyone's favorite toy, and doesn't want to share. There's far too much of an air that he's the showrunner, and he can do what he wants neener neener neener about this year's finale.

Has anyone posted this yet? Do Sherlock and Doctor Who Really Have a "Bad Fan" Problem? (If so, apologies for the smeek.)

In other industries, you can't give a big f-u to your fan base and expect to stay in business. I wish someone would give Moffat a big clout on the head and tell him to just leave off messing with the fans, and tell the story already.

As I said in the 'annoy' thread, I hate it when I like characters and the author/showrunner sends them off on stupid storylines. Like LoadStar said in his post above, if you're a writer and you're going to kill a character, it has to serve a purpose.

I don't have that confidence with Moffat. His plots are all clockwork and no heart.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

People here seem to write as fact that Moffat is a problem, yet the majority of the Doctor Who sites and podcasts t think he's great. I certainly don't know what is suddenly wrong with the Smith era story arcs, I thought they were all fantastic.

Great to see Matt Smith in this one and fun how they put Jenna first in the credits after the opening scene.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

The only cool feature of this episode was replacing Capaldi's eyes with Clara's in the opening sequence!


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

TonyTheTiger said:


> The only cool feature of this episode was replacing Capaldi's eyes with Clara's in the opening sequence!


They also listed her name first in the opening. Which would have been neat, if I hadn't 30ss'd over it the first time watching.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I like Capaldi as The Doctor but this was an entirely forgettable season. Not bad, just eh. The only significant memorable events were The Doctor's regeneration and Clara's exit.

I HATE what they've done to The Master in the reboot. It's like they've tried to make him/her into their version of The Joker, but only sillier.

I feel bad for Danny Pink. He was mistreated by both Clara and The Doctor. He should have been a blues musician so he could write songs about how they both did him wrong.

I tried to wrap my head around where the metal came from in the Cyberman transformations but quickly gave up.

I have a crappy memory so I was like "Who the heck are these people?" when Osgood and the Brigadier's daughter showed up. It took a litlle while for the recollection to kick in. It wasn't cool that Osgood was killed so flippantly but she was exceeding dumb in her final scene with Missy.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Count me in with those who think Stevan Moffat has been promoted above his leval of competence.

I can grudgingly accept his has taken chracters and stories in directions I do not enjoy.

What I find difficult is that I have repeatedly had to download the subtitles and read after broadcast to understand what he intends the characters and stories to be.


----------



## KenDC (Jun 18, 2001)

I can't remember but were characters able to negotiate with Cybermen in past episodes? I didn't see where Clara should have been able to delay her death as long as she did. I though they had always been killing machines before. Maybe I am misremembering?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

KenDC said:


> I can't remember but were characters able to negotiate with Cybermen in past episodes? I didn't see where Clara should have been able to delay her death as long as she did. I though they had always been killing machines before. Maybe I am misremembering?


Rory in _Demons Run_.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

There seems to be a bit of a continuity problem here too. If Danny Pink is dead, how could there ever be an Orson Pink whose family had been involved in time travel?


----------



## ihatecable (Apr 16, 2003)

I was thinking the same thing! Did Danny ever mention if he had a brother? Orson Pink could be his nephew instead of his son.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> ..
> So far, Moffat's story arcs haven't satisfied. I felt the same way about Matt Smith's seasons, and even more so with this one.
> 
> I wish Moffat would quit acting like a playground bully who happens to have gotten possession of everyone's favorite toy, and doesn't want to share. There's far too much of an air that he's the showrunner, and he can do what he wants neener neener neener about this year's finale.
> ...


One of the problems I have with Moffat's story arcs is that he does fully conclude/explain them at the end of the season.

And having seen interviews not directly connected with Doctor Who episodes I have long thought Moffat is a bully made worst by becoming showrunner.

The article touches on what I feel about the death of Osgood - it was more about a nasty streak in Moffat than good story telling.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Shakhari said:


> There seems to be a bit of a continuity problem here too. If Danny Pink is dead, how could there ever be an Orson Pink whose family had been involved in time travel?


There's some fan hypothesis that Clara is pregnant. One of the post-its on the bookcase in the last episode was "3 months," and some people are guessing that is how far along she is. Seems a bit unlikely to me but you never know.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Time can be re-written.. 
So shes either pregnant now, or The Masters influence on the time line has changed things. She could also appear maybe in a one and done episode in the future, going back in time and having an encounter with Pink.
So believe what you want IMO.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Let's remember that she was calling him with big news when he was run over.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Shakhari said:


> There seems to be a bit of a continuity problem here too. If Danny Pink is dead, how could there ever be an Orson Pink whose family had been involved in time travel?


One of the yellow sticky notes Clara was looking at to remind herself what to say to Danny said Three Months - she could be three months pregnant.

In a previous season with Cybermen there was Mickey and Rickey played by the same actor. The real explanation was Mickey had entered a parallel universe but a character also suggested that their father had a bicycle. Clara is already tasked with taking the Afghan child home. Perhaps a child of Danny will go looking for him and find her.

In the first episode of the season the Doctor was treated with caution in case he was a "duplicate". The Whoniverse is stuffed with clones and timely wimey stuff.

Personally I hope the Christmas Special will not offer a 'logical' explanation - but I fear it will.

*Edit* Composing while LoadStar posting


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

pgogborn said:


> One of the problems I have with Moffat's story arcs is that he does fully conclude/explain them at the end of the season.
> 
> And having seen interviews not directly connected with Doctor Who episodes I have long thought Moffat is a bully made worst by becoming showrunner.
> 
> The article touches on what I feel about the death of Osgood - it was more about a nasty streak in Moffat than good story telling.


After watching Moffat as show-runner, I have a new appreciation for the streak of anti-intellectualism that infested the Athenians in the Classical period. It's easier to see now why someone would be suspect if they were clever merely for the sake of being clever.

I believe the phrase in Britain is "too clever by half"?


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> I believe the phrase in Britain is "too clever by half"?


Yep, in British idiom that is a high level insult.


----------



## ThePennyDropped (Jul 5, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> Joss has never been afraid to kill a character, so long as it serves the greater good of the story, or if it serves to motivate an action in or a development of another character or characters. Here, it was a meaningless death. It happened, and was barely acknowledged after. It had zero material impact on the events of the episode.


Actually, Osgood's death did serve the greater good of the story. It convinced the viewers that recurring characters were not immune to being killed off, so when Kate fell out of the airplane, we viewers expected her to die and were surprised when she turned up alive and well thanks to her cyber dad.

But boy did Moffat do Osgood wrong by writing her as stupid enough to get that close to Missy.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

ThePennyDropped said:


> But boy did Moffat do Osgood wrong by writing her as stupid enough to get that close to Missy.


Although, her getting that close didn't actually contribute to the outcome at all. It only let Missy add some style points to her homicidal rampage.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> I believe the phrase in Britain is "too clever by half"?


Another way I would put it is "less is more".

I think Osgood being pulverised distracted from the big story, the redemption of Danny.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

pgogborn said:


> Another way I would put it is "less is more". I think Osgood being pulverised distracted from the big story, the redemption of Danny.


It did?


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

And what's up with those guards behind Missy? They had plenty of time to react to Missy getting free and do something about it, but they just stood there doing nothing until Missy was already right behind Osgood. Acting like they didn't know how to handle the situation would have been more believable than the nothing they did.

And if you look again, the cuffs were in Osgood's pocket even before she approached Missy.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

busyba said:


> Although, her getting that close didn't actually contribute to the outcome at all. It only let Missy add some style points to her homicidal rampage.


Exactly. It was stupid of her but wasn't relevant to the plot.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> It did?


/I look around the cloud.

Me and the Huffington Post are unanimous on that:

While his story had a lot of potential, his sacrifice at the end of the episode didn't feel as heartbreaking as it should have. Based on fan reactions alone, more people cared about Osgood's fate than Danny's >
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...tml?utm_hp_ref=entertainment&ir=Entertainment


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

pgogborn said:


> While his story had a lot of potential, his sacrifice at the end of the episode didn't feel as heartbreaking as it should have. Based on fan reactions alone, more people cared about Osgood's fate than Danny's >
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...tml?utm_hp_ref=entertainment&ir=Entertainment


Most people didn't really care about Danny's sacrifice because no one cared about him in the first place. He kind of just shows up, somehow becomes Clara's de facto boyfriend, is in a few episodes and then dies. Other than do a front flip over a killer robot, he didn't do anything the entire season. Not sure why we should care about him.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Osgood's death was momentarily shocking then I forgot about it and moved on. It was not distracting. Kate's "death" was weird because it was so sudden that it was clearly never going to be final. That was more distracting because I kept wondering how they would save her. Sure took a long time to fall


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

pgogborn said:


> Another way I would put it is "less is more".
> 
> I think Osgood being pulverised distracted from the big story, the redemption of Danny.


Only if you over inflated her relevance in the whoniverse.
The only reason I gave her vaporization any thought after the fact was because her glasses being left behind was simply ridiculous.

And Danny's redemption was not the big story, just a sub-plot within it.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

JohnB1000 said:


> Sure took a long time to fall


How so?


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> And if you look again, the cuffs were in Osgood's pocket even before she approached Missy.


I am not certain about that.

Having been critical I do think the scene had some great lines of dialogue - including a reference to bondage as a sexual activity.

###
Missy: What's THAT in your pocket?

Osgood: There's nothing in my... Oh, my giddy aunt.

Missy: The quiet ones are the worst.

0sgood: Well, those aren't mine.

Missy: Hmm... Then they must be mine.
###

There was yet another humorous reference to bondage which started to push up against my less is more preference.

###
Missy: We can... We can go together [to Galifrey]. Just you and me, just like the old days.

The Doctor: You'd be clapped in irons.

Missy: If you like.
###


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

pgogborn said:


> Another way I would put it is "less is more".
> 
> I think Osgood being pulverised distracted from the big story, the redemption of Danny.





pgogborn said:


> /I look around the cloud.
> 
> Me and the Huffington Post are unanimous on that:
> 
> ...


Interesting writeup by Chris Lough on Tor.com (with speculation, therefore SPOILERS):

In the End, No One Gets What They Want. 
Doctor Who: "Death in Heaven"



> We've seen Daleks turn our own planet into slag but somehow nothing on Doctor Who has seemed quite as brutal as the events in "Death in Heaven." There's a cruel edge to the storyline, one that I think is only somewhat warranted by the presence of the Master. We expect death, destruction, and a distinct lack of honor to what the Master says and does, but Moffat's script seemed to go out of its way at points to really grind that in. To, in essence, promise something wonderful specifically to the viewer, and then snatch that possibility away.


... and farther down the page, a speculation:



Spoiler



So did Zygon Osgood die or Real Osgood? Real Osgood needed the inhaler...or did they both need it by the end of "The Day of the Doctor"?


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

pgogborn said:


> I am not certain about that.


I am.

Screen cap from before Osgood gets close to Missy









When Missy asks her what's in her pocket, Osgood responds that there's nothing in her pocket, so this pic shouldn't show anything in the pocket.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Why do people need to read blog opinions on shows? Can't decide for yourselves? Oswalds death had little impact on Danny's sacrifice. They did a good job with the sacrifice and a great job with the Brig. So glad someone on HuffPo tells people what to think.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> Why do people need to read blog opinions on shows? Can't decide for yourselves?


Are you saying you want us to think there is something wrong with that?


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Why do people need to read blog opinions on shows?:up:


Probably about the same reason why people read thread opinions on shows.

Next question. Why do people post opinions on shows?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> Why do people need to read blog opinions on shows? Can't decide for yourselves? Oswalds death had little impact on Danny's sacrifice. They did a good job with the sacrifice and a great job with the Brig. So glad someone on HuffPo tells people what to think.


Why do you read these threads if you care so little about what other people think?


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

TonyD79 said:


> Why do people need to read blog opinions on shows? Can't decide for yourselves? Oswalds death had little impact on Danny's sacrifice. They did a good job with the sacrifice and a great job with the Brig. So glad someone on HuffPo tells people what to think.


Clara died?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Osgood was stupid. But the two guards must have been the worst guards in history.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Clara's impression of the Doctor made me hope that when Capaldi regenerates, they choose JL Coleman as the next Doctor.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Philosofy said:


> Clara's impression of the Doctor made me hope that when Capaldi regenerates, they choose JL Coleman as the next Doctor.


That's extremely implausible, IMO.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> That's extremely implausible, IMO.


I agree, but they did hint that the Doctor can have some control over his next form...


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Why do people need to read blog opinions on shows? Can't decide for yourselves? Oswalds death had little impact on Danny's sacrifice. They did a good job with the sacrifice and a great job with the Brig. So glad someone on HuffPo tells people what to think.


I can decide on the major suckitude of this season without any help, thank you.

YOU say that Oswald's death had little impact on Danny's sacrifice. That's true for YOU but not necessarily true for anyone else but you.

This finale violates several principles of good storytelling. I prefer stories where the plot points seem to arise organically out of the character of the people in the story. It gives the story a feeling of inevitability, like a good piece of classical music, where the composer has found exactly the right notes, the ones that you feel MUST come next.

Some writers, on the other hand, seem to push the people in the story around like pieces on a chessboard, in a contrived fashion. Often they force their characters to do things which seem wildly out of character, simply because they need someone to perform a particular action.

A brilliant writer, like Connie Willis, can make all the gears in a clockwork plot seem natural, just like in an organic plot. Lesser writers, however, sometimes force the mechanism to go the way they want, and don't seem to care if the particular action is in character or not.

Osgood's death is particularly galling to some of us because the script demanded she do something stupid in order for the plot to go forward. One common shorthand for this is to say "a stupid plot". I hate stupid plots.

I also dislike manipulative writers who do things deliberately to screw around with the audience, instead of paying attention to what the actual demands of the story might be. Stephen R. Donaldson's Chronicles about Thomas Covenant are a notable example -- Donaldson admitted that he did certain things on purpose to screw with his audience. In one of his books on writing, the novelist John Gardner calls that dishonest writing -- when the writer doesn't care about what he is writing about.

The only way to find out how many people agree with me or disagree with me about whether the writing is dishonest is to go out and look at what they say. I don't NEED to count how many say one thing or the other, but I am curious about what other people think. The only way I can discover what impact the story had on them is to listen to what they say.

Watching a play, or something on TV, is a conversation between the ensemble and the audience. Every audience member brings their own experience with them, and stories will resonate with each audience member in different ways.

Other viewers often pick up on things that i have missed on the first viewing. People who are long-time fans of Classic Who will pick up on homages or allusions that I will miss. Even though I like British shows, I am American -- Brits will notice and understand some things that will pass me by. Especially in the Moffat era, when the sound mix has been particularly annoying, I might miss a bit of dialogue because I didn't want to break up the flow of the story to rewind and figure it out, or turn on the captioning.

As well as finding out about the audience reaction to the show, I read what other people say to see what I might have missed. I don't need them to make up my mind for me.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

eddyj said:


> Osgood was stupid. But the two guards must have been the worst guards in history.


Let us be kind to the guards. It wasn't the saluting self-concussing that explains the whole of military history.

It was Time Lord technology, a perception filter.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

murgatroyd said:


> Osgood's death is particularly galling to some of us because the script demanded she do something stupid in order for the plot to go forward. One common shorthand for this is to say "a stupid plot". I hate stupid plots.


It's already been addressed here that the "stupid" thing Osgood did had no consequences and served no plot purpose. It was irrelevant to anything else that happened afterward, including her death.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

pgogborn said:


> Let us be kind to the guards. It wasn't the saluting self-concussing that explains the whole of military history.
> 
> It was Time Lord technology, a perception filter.


They were not self concussed, all the saluting must have turned their brains into mush altogether.

Gee, she is out of her handcuffs! And putting on lipstick! No problem, let's just keep on standing here like idiots.

I hate forced stupidity. That is why I loathe most sitcoms, when they need to have people (even supposedly intelligent ones) do incredibly stupid stuff just so something funny happens). Same principle applies here.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

ThePennyDropped said:


> But boy did Moffat do Osgood wrong by writing her as stupid enough to get that close to Missy.


And not realizing that Missy saying "I'm going to kill you in sixty seconds" meant that Missy was going to kill her in sixty seconds. (Or whatever Missy actually said.) Run, girl!


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> And not realizing that Missy saying "I'm going to kill you in sixty seconds" meant that Missy was going to kill her in sixty seconds. (Or whatever Missy actually said.) Run, girl!


Better still:

MISSY: "I'm going to kill you in sixty seconds"

OSGOOD: "Oh. <beat> Guards. Fire."

MISSY: "Wait, wha--"

<gunshots>

<scene>


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Why do people need to read blog opinions on shows? Can't decide for yourselves? Oswalds death had little impact on Danny's sacrifice. They did a good job with the sacrifice and a great job with the Brig. So glad someone on HuffPo tells people what to think.


Are you really asking that ? I love to read articles on shows I watch, to look for what I missed, see if people agreed with me on things, get alternative explanations and theories on things.


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 3, 2004)

scandia101 said:


> It's already been addressed here that the "stupid" thing Osgood did had no consequences and served no plot purpose. It was irrelevant to anything else that happened afterward, including her death.


There are plenty of things a smart, clever person (as Osgood was portrayed to be) can do within 60 seconds to not get killed. Especially her knowing who Missy was. So I think it was certainly relevant here and contrary to the character's portrayal in the past.

But other drama in the episode was no less stupid:
- Yes lets fly 'President of Earth', planet's last hope, on a regular airplane without military escort, with FLYING enemy around.
- Put two inept guards, Osgood, and the Tardis in the same room with a handcuffed Missy/Master, who is planning to destroy everything. And, any reason why not to make the Tardis itself the base of operations? It's slightly more Cyberman-proof.

Probably the only redeeming quality to the episode was Clara impersonating the Doctor (it was nicely done) and Capaldi's acting. I haven't watched original series so some of references (like Brig) didn't do anything for me.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

secondclaw said:


> There are plenty of things a smart, clever person (as Osgood was portrayed to be) can do within 60 seconds to not get killed. Especially her knowing who Missy was. So I think it was certainly relevant here and contrary to the character's portrayal in the past.


Osgood's fate (life or death) is not relevant to the plot in any way. The character could be completely cut out of the episode w/o affecting the plot.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

scandia101 said:


> Osgood's fate (life or death) is not relevant to the plot in any way. The character could be completely cut out of the episode w/o affecting the plot.


Yes, it felt like she was thrown in just to give us fans yet another call-back to notice. That's kinda been my problem with this whole season; it feels like Moffatt concentrated all his energies on playing to the audience rather than just simply telling good stories. I mean, I've _enjoyed_ some of the stories well enough, but there were way too many little wink-and-nod, nudge-nudge moments that didn't serve any narrative purpose.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> Osgood's fate (life or death) is not relevant to the plot in any way. The character could be completely cut out of the episode w/o affecting the plot.


The way Missy was captured was part of the story. And Osgood was the perfect choice for concealing and then springing the surprise.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> It's already been addressed here that the "stupid" thing Osgood did had no consequences and served no plot purpose. It was irrelevant to anything else that happened afterward, including her death.


Yes, and the post of mine that you quoted ought to have made it quite clear that I agreed with all the people who had addressed that point before I did.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

murgatroyd said:


> Yes, and the post of mine that you quoted ought to have made it quite clear that I agreed with all the people who had addressed that point before I did.



How can it be clear that you agree when you say the complete opposite?


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

pgogborn said:


> The way Missy was captured was part of the story. And Osgood was the perfect choice for concealing and then springing the surprise.


Missy being captured is a plot point, but how it happened is not relevant.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> Missy being captured is a plot point, but how it happened is not relevant.


I said and say Missy being captured was the story, not the plot.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> How can it be clear that you agree when you say the complete opposite?


Excuse me? For Missy to escape, Moffat has to show Osgood doing something stupid, namely, getting suckered by Missy instead of calling on the guards to blast her to kingdom come (as suggested by secondclaw).

IMHO Ingrid Oliver is too charming to waste on a role that is just going to be thrown away.

Shame on Moffat for teasing us that she would be the new companion and then killing her character because he is too lazy to find a better way.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

murgatroyd said:


> Excuse me? For Missy to escape, Moffat has to show Osgood doing something stupid, namely, getting suckered by Missy instead of calling on the guards to blast her to kingdom come (as suggested by secondclaw).


Missy's escape was in no way affected by Osgood and nothing Osgood did affected her own fate. 
What part of that are you having so much difficulty understanding?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

fwiw, my kids LOVED this season and are now DW fans for life. I thought it was a pretty good season!

I've been watching since the Eccleston season. But my problem with DW is, for some reason, I have zero clue who that ozgood lady is, who the blond woman is (or who her father was, for that matter), who Missy really was (his friend from childhood?) and what the frak is gilfrey.

I know I'm asking too much but if someone could answer these questions for me, I would be very grateful!


----------



## timr_42 (Oct 14, 2001)

Anubys said:


> fwiw, my kids LOVED this season and are now DW fans for life. I thought it was a pretty good season!
> 
> I've been watching since the Eccleston season. But my problem with DW is, for some reason, I have zero clue who that ozgood lady is, who the blond woman is (or who her father was, for that matter), who Missy really was (his friend from childhood?) and what the frak is gilfrey.
> 
> I know I'm asking too much but if someone could answer these questions for me, I would be very grateful!


That is when going back and watching the older stuff come in handy

Missy is the Master, you have seen him on other episodes in the new show. 
Osgood and Kate are from UNIT. You saw them on the 50th anniversary show.

Kate's father was the former head of UNIT, go watch some Pertwee shows to see him. His character had been on a bunch of doctor's shows but he was in almost all of Pertwee's shows since the Doctor was banished to Earth and worked for UNIT.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Osgood is a very minor character working for U.N.I.T. who has only appeared in a couple of episodes. It probably wasn't intended/predicted by the writer but she became very popular with fans such as me.

The blonde woman is and her father (Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart) used to be in charge of U.N.IT. (UNified Intelligence Taskforce, or United Nations Intelligence Taskforce) a military force that combats extraterrestrial threats. At various times, particularly with Old Who, it has played a big part in Doctor Who episodes.

Missy is a Time Lord gone bad, she was a childhood friend of the Doctor. All her previous regenerations have been male and she has appeared in many old and new Who episodes as the Master.

Galifrey is the Doctor's and Master/Missy home planet.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Anubys said:


> fwiw, my kids LOVED this season and are now DW fans for life. I thought it was a pretty good season!
> 
> I've been watching since the Eccleston season. But my problem with DW is, for some reason, I have zero clue who that ozgood lady is, who the blond woman is (or who her father was, for that matter), who Missy really was (his friend from childhood?) and what the frak is gilfrey.
> 
> I know I'm asking too much but if someone could answer these questions for me, I would be very grateful!


I see you are getting answers. I cannot help but marvel at the statement that you have been watching since Ecceston and you have these questions. Except maybe the blond lady question. The Master has been several episodes since Eccleston; Gallifrey has been highlighted several times and mentioned often. And you have seen everything of Osgood that we all have.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I'm in the same boat with Anubys except that I have caught on to Galifrey. I don't "study" DW like I do GoT or did Lost, and these things fly by quickly with just 1 watch.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

stellie93 said:


> I'm in the same boat with Anubys except that I have caught on to Galifrey. I don't "study" DW like I do GoT or did Lost, and these things fly by quickly with just 1 watch.


Yeah, it's all 1 watch for me unlike Game of Thrones; which I watch at least 4 times.

I seem to recall something about Galifrey. The Doctor thought he killed everyone but found out recently that he didn't, correct? it's just "lost" somewhere (or in another dimension)?


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Anubys said:


> I seem to recall something about Galifrey. The Doctor thought he killed everyone but found out recently that he didn't, correct? it's just "lost" somewhere (or in another dimension)?


I would make a very small adjustment to that.

The Doctor destroyed Galifrey and the Daleks in the Great Time War.

A combination of Doctors then rewrote history in a new time line and saved Galifrey by transporting it to another dimension (the Daleks destroyed themselves in crossfire when Galifrey suddenly disappeared).

The Doctor can't find where Galifrey has been transported to.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Anubys said:


> Yeah, it's all 1 watch for me unlike Game of Thrones; which I watch at least 4 times.
> 
> I seem to recall something about Galifrey. The Doctor thought he killed everyone but found out recently that he didn't, correct? it's just "lost" somewhere (or in another dimension)?


Wow. In other words, you paid absolutely ZERO attention during The Name of the Doctor (the one with John Hurt). That was the ENTIRE plot. This is not reviewing or taking notes. This is the story line itself! That's like saying you missed that the movie 42 was about Jackie Robinson.

Sorry, I am just so stunned....


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> Wow. In other words, you paid absolutely ZERO attention during The Name of the Doctor (the one with John Hurt). That was the ENTIRE plot. This is not reviewing or taking notes. This is the story line itself! That's like saying you missed that the movie 42 was about Jackie Robinson.
> 
> Sorry, I am just so stunned....


*Cough* - The Day of the Doctor - *Cough*


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Wow. In other words, you paid absolutely ZERO attention during The Name of the Doctor (the one with John Hurt). That was the ENTIRE plot. This is not reviewing or taking notes. This is the story line itself! That's like saying you missed that the movie 42 was about Jackie Robinson.
> 
> Sorry, I am just so stunned....


Oh yeah! I remember that episode...it was really great and fun to watch...

This is a show I watch as silly fun...so it's hard to recall things...I just need little reminders and I'm good to go...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

kdmorse said:


> *Cough* - The Day of the Doctor - *Cough*


Yes.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

wow


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> This is the story line itself! That's like saying you missed that the movie 42 was about Jackie Robinson.


42?


Spoiler



Didn't the planet Earth get destroyed in that movie?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> 42?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I also thought it was a sequel to THGTTG!


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

I pay attention and have watched some eps twice...but time travel and wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey stuff always confuses me. It took about three watchings of the Gallifrey episode plus reading here to understand it.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

I do not watch the preview of the next episode at the ends of episodes, I try to avoid publicity for what is coming in the print media, but this got so much chatter in my neck of the wood I could not miss it.

BBC News Release. Doctor Who next series


Spoiler



Doctor Who executive producer and lead writer Steven Moffat said: "Osgood is back, fresh from her recent murder at the end of last series.

"We recently confirmed that Osgood was definitely dead and not returning - but in a show about time travel, anything can happen.

"The brilliant Ingrid Oliver is back in action. This time though, can the Doctor trust his number one fan?"

Oliver said: "As every actor who's worked on Doctor Who will tell you, there's always the secret hope you'll get the call asking you to come back.

"To actually receive that call is both unexpected and brilliant.

"The word 'honour' gets bandied about a lot, but it really is, it's an honour. Especially because I was so sure Osgood was a goner after the last series. ">
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/artic...it-scientist-osgood-to-make-doctor-who-return


----------



## ACoolDude (Dec 11, 2001)

Next season casting spoiler:



Spoiler



Game of Thrones' Maisie Williams joins Doctor Who











:up:


----------

