Doctor Who is getting a big-screen adaptation. Yes, for real this time.

Recommended Videos

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
You know, you took the exact opposite message from that interview that I did; what I got out of it was he wanted a show set in the original continuity, but he wanted a younger cast with better special effects -- which, granted, could easily lead to Stargate: Universe syndrome, but then Enterprise pretty much had that anyway, so I doubt it will be any /worse/ than that show was.

As for Doctor Who: I thought the last season was excellent. The problem here is that Moffat and Smith seem to be fans of the original series, which was a lot sillier than the Davies penned seasons were. Whether you like it or not depends on whether or not you like the old series. Judging by the fact that you talked about Star Trek TNG, but didn't mention TOS at all suggests the slight cheesiness in the last season is a bit offputting for you, while for others it's exactly what the show needed.
I also remember him saying something similar to that he wanted to have a deeper character driven show. The problem is that that is what killed SGU, the people behind that didn't understand that what made Stargate "Stargate" was the Stargate and traveling to other worlds and fighting off evil. One of the big reasons I liked Stargate was that it was in a way similar to Star Trek in those respects I mentioned, but set in the present day. But SGU barely had any of what made the franchise great. It makes me sad to know that the reason they canceled Atlantis to push SGU, and then canceled the Atlantis movie when SGU got canned because the vast majority of fans hated it and didn't watch. Because of that they thought the Atlantis movie wouldn't be successful, which was a stupid move from their ignorance of why SGU failed.

What's really sad is that because of that they ran the channel's flagship franchise into the ground.

On the Doctor Who part, it isn't necessarily the cheesiness of the last series that got to me, that was fine, it grew on me, mainly because I know what the old series was like because I watched a good bit of it and have around 20 different old series stories on DVD, as well as a Marvel, 23 comic book series from the 80's(You haven't seen Doctor Who cheesy until you have read those).

The part I had a problem with was that it didn't feel like Doctor Who in any series context old or new, because the Doctor felt like a secondary character this series. For the most part it was the Amy and Rory show and the horrible and very unexpected twist(because it is incredibly stupid) that River Song is their child. It would have been far better if River Song just had been some Time Lord from the Doctor's past or one that he hadn't met before.

Because of that I felt one of the best episodes of the season was the episode Craig came back, though they still shoehorned three or so minutes of unrelated and uncalled for air time for Amy and Rory. This last series traveled into the territory where the Doctor ended up being in less then half the scenes in some of the episodes, which from all the Doctor Who I have watched, that has never happened, unless there is a specific reason(like in "Blink").

Moffat is proving to me to be a person that shouldn't be in control, just allowed to right a couple or three episodes and leave the big series arc stories to somebody with some semblance of sense about the show and it's canon.
 

Sylocat

Sci-Fi & Shakespeare
Nov 13, 2007
2,122
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
As for Doctor Who: I thought the last season was excellent. The problem here is that Moffat and Smith seem to be fans of the original series, which was a lot sillier than the Davies penned seasons were. Whether you like it or not depends on whether or not you like the old series. Judging by the fact that you talked about Star Trek TNG, but didn't mention TOS at all suggests the slight cheesiness in the last season is a bit offputting for you, while for others it's exactly what the show needed.
I don't think "silliness" or "cheesiness" is the problem, especially given that this season had plenty of serious and dramatic moments (though the best ones all seemed to be in the one-off episodes, which weren't written by Moffat...). The problem is... well, there's the fact that each time the season-arc gave us a cool setup, the payoff was completely idiotic, even by Doctor Who standards, and they didn't even have the excuse of being exciting or interesting or even symbolic... and, oh yeah, it took River Song and reduced her into something so pathetically soppy that even Stephanie Meyer wouldn't write her.

Seriously, I wanted to grab Moffat and yell, "Who are you, and what did you do with the person who wrote 'The Girl in the Fireplace'?"

So yeah, after watching "The Wedding of River Song," I'm much more open to the idea of David Yates giving us a big-screen origin story. So long as they don't try any bullshit like revealing the Doctor's name or making him a gun-toting action hero (and this movie is under the BBC umbrella, so...), I'm good.
 

IndianaJonny

Mysteron Display Team
Jan 6, 2011
813
0
0
AND JUST WHAT WAS WRONG ABOUT CUSHING'S!!!!!


(fanboy grumble...Peter Cushing...grumble...2 films ALREADY...rascals don't know their heritage!)

ravensheart18 said:
I hope this goes better than the made for TV movie *shudders*
Yeah, the '96 film wasn't great but Paul McGann came across better in the Dr Who radio dramas he did; they are really worth checking out.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Sonic Doctor said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
You know, you took the exact opposite message from that interview that I did; what I got out of it was he wanted a show set in the original continuity, but he wanted a younger cast with better special effects -- which, granted, could easily lead to Stargate: Universe syndrome, but then Enterprise pretty much had that anyway, so I doubt it will be any /worse/ than that show was.

As for Doctor Who: I thought the last season was excellent. The problem here is that Moffat and Smith seem to be fans of the original series, which was a lot sillier than the Davies penned seasons were. Whether you like it or not depends on whether or not you like the old series. Judging by the fact that you talked about Star Trek TNG, but didn't mention TOS at all suggests the slight cheesiness in the last season is a bit offputting for you, while for others it's exactly what the show needed.
I also remember him saying something similar to that he wanted to have a deeper character driven show. The problem is that that is what killed SGU, the people behind that didn't understand that what made Stargate "Stargate" was the Stargate and traveling to other worlds and fighting off evil. One of the big reasons I liked Stargate was that it was in a way similar to Star Trek in those respects I mentioned, but set in the present day. But SGU barely had any of what made the franchise great. It makes me sad to know that the reason they canceled Atlantis to push SGU, and then canceled the Atlantis movie when SGU got canned because the vast majority of fans hated it and didn't watch. Because of that they thought the Atlantis movie wouldn't be successful, which was a stupid move from their ignorance of why SGU failed.

What's really sad is that because of that they ran the channel's flagship franchise into the ground.

On the Doctor Who part, it isn't necessarily the cheesiness of the last series that got to me, that was fine, it grew on me, mainly because I know what the old series was like because I watched a good bit of it and have around 20 different old series stories on DVD, as well as a Marvel, 23 comic book series from the 80's(You haven't seen Doctor Who cheesy until you have read those).

The part I had a problem with was that it didn't feel like Doctor Who in any series context old or new, because the Doctor felt like a secondary character this series. For the most part it was the Amy and Rory show and the horrible and very unexpected twist(because it is incredibly stupid) that River Song is their child. It would have been far better if River Song just had been some Time Lord from the Doctor's past or one that he hadn't met before.

Because of that I felt one of the best episodes of the season was the episode Craig came back, though they still shoehorned three or so minutes of unrelated and uncalled for air time for Amy and Rory. This last series traveled into the territory where the Doctor ended up being in less then half the scenes in some of the episodes, which from all the Doctor Who I have watched, that has never happened, unless there is a specific reason(like in "Blink").

Moffat is proving to me to be a person that shouldn't be in control, just allowed to right a couple or three episodes and leave the big series arc stories to somebody with some semblance of sense about the show and it's canon.
Okay, that's a valid complaint. Amy and Rory got on my nerves a bit too -- although more because of the way they kept having one or the other of them "die" and then come back to life 30 seconds later than anything to do with the characters themselves. The thing about River Song being their daughter was a bit odd, too, but it at least fit; she had to have some kind of deep connection to the TARDIS, otherwise why would the TARDIS herself have taught her how to pilot it? Being conceived while aboard the TARDIS, and having her DNA warped into that of some kind of proto-TimeLord by the energy she was surrounded with kind of makes sense.

Also, while Rory and Amy had more screen time than any other companions in the old series, it's kind of par for the course for the new series -- or at worst, slightly above par. Think about Rose and Donna; Donna in particular was more important to her season than the Doctor was, even getting an episode (or was it a two parter?) where the Doctor only showed up right at the beginning and end. So, while that's not exactly like the classic series, it does fit in pretty well with the Davies reboot.
Sylocat said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
As for Doctor Who: I thought the last season was excellent. The problem here is that Moffat and Smith seem to be fans of the original series, which was a lot sillier than the Davies penned seasons were. Whether you like it or not depends on whether or not you like the old series. Judging by the fact that you talked about Star Trek TNG, but didn't mention TOS at all suggests the slight cheesiness in the last season is a bit offputting for you, while for others it's exactly what the show needed.
I don't think "silliness" or "cheesiness" is the problem, especially given that this season had plenty of serious and dramatic moments (though the best ones all seemed to be in the one-off episodes, which weren't written by Moffat...). The problem is... well, there's the fact that each time the season-arc gave us a cool setup, the payoff was completely idiotic, even by Doctor Who standards, and they didn't even have the excuse of being exciting or interesting or even symbolic... and, oh yeah, it took River Song and reduced her into something so pathetically soppy that even Stephanie Meyer wouldn't write her.

Seriously, I wanted to grab Moffat and yell, "Who are you, and what did you do with the person who wrote 'The Girl in the Fireplace'?"

So yeah, after watching "The Wedding of River Song," I'm much more open to the idea of David Yates giving us a big-screen origin story. So long as they don't try any bullshit like revealing the Doctor's name or making him a gun-toting action hero (and this movie is under the BBC umbrella, so...), I'm good.
That's a matter of opinion. Personally, I like Moffat's method of having multi-season arcs better than Davies' thing where there's a running theme throughout the series, and then suddenly in the last three or four episodes we get a finale out of nowhere that neatly creates and wraps itself up. I'm not expecting a LOST style myth arc, but I have no problem with stories that take more than one season to pay off.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
redisforever said:
It'll be shit. I have wanted one for years, but then I read what it'll be about, and no. It will be SHIT.

Unless...they get Christopher Eccleston back as the Doctor, get Stephen Moffat to write, get a director from the show, and set it during the Time War. Between the 8th and 9th Doctor's screen time. PLEASE?! Just make an hour and a half long episode! You already do this with the two parters guys!
Eccleston has said he won't go back, and it was implied that meant even for a "Two/Three/Whatever number Doctors" deal for the anniversary. I wouldn't get my hopes up that he'll be involved, though things can change.

But I like that idea.

I don't want a concurrent Doctor who movie and TV series unless they're related.

Owyn_Merrilin said:
Personally, I like Moffat's method of having multi-season arcs better than Davies' thing where there's a running theme throughout the series, and then suddenly in the last three or four episodes we get a finale out of nowhere that neatly creates and wraps itself up. I'm not expecting a LOST style myth arc, but I have no problem with stories that take more than one season to pay off.
Personally, I'm more fond of Moffat's method of not having complete ass-pulls and cop-outs as season finishers. Though I'm less fond of series six, for a lot of reasons, one of which being the "solution" to the series seems like something Davies would pull.

Series five is undoubtedly my favourite of the revised series, and a lot of that deals with the long game. But series six starts and he starts doing all sorts of weird stuff...This need to constantly separate and re-united Rory and Amy from the Doctor. Completely dropping, far as I can tell, the mystery of the exploding TARDIS, even though that was the one thing that seemed to have the Doctor's attention at the end of 5. If this was addressed in the last couples eps, my apologies. They started with a situation we knew could not hold. While you can argue "It's the journey, not the destination," they didn't particularly make the journey something enjoyable. The River Song thing seemed rushed to me, condensed to one season for one of many possible reasons. And while I ADORE River Song, by the end, even I was agreeing with her critics. It didn't feel like much got really resolved in all this, either.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Personally, I like Moffat's method of having multi-season arcs better than Davies' thing where there's a running theme throughout the series, and then suddenly in the last three or four episodes we get a finale out of nowhere that neatly creates and wraps itself up. I'm not expecting a LOST style myth arc, but I have no problem with stories that take more than one season to pay off.
Personally, I'm more fond of Moffat's method of not having complete ass-pulls and cop-outs as season finishers. Though I'm less fond of series six, for a lot of reasons, one of which being the "solution" to the series seems like something Davies would pull.

Series five is undoubtedly my favourite of the revised series, and a lot of that deals with the long game. But series six starts and he starts doing all sorts of weird stuff...This need to constantly separate and re-united Rory and Amy from the Doctor. Completely dropping, far as I can tell, the mystery of the exploding TARDIS, even though that was the one thing that seemed to have the Doctor's attention at the end of 5. If this was addressed in the last couples eps, my apologies. They started with a situation we knew could not hold. While you can argue "It's the journey, not the destination," they didn't particularly make the journey something enjoyable. The River Song thing seemed rushed to me, condensed to one season for one of many possible reasons. And while I ADORE River Song, by the end, even I was agreeing with her critics. It didn't feel like much got really resolved in all this, either.
My point exactly. Davies has no idea how to build up to a finale; it just shows up out of nowhere right at the end. I guess I see where you're coming from with the current finale (especially because it doesn't mesh with what Eccleston showed us happens when someone screws up a fixed point in time), but it still fit better than a lot of what Davies did. Also, nice to see another fan of series 5; I remember hearing all the complaints about the episode with the Daleks in World War II and thinking "what are you guys complaining about? This is classic Who right here."
 

WolfThomas

Man must have a code.
Dec 21, 2007
5,292
0
0
An origin story or the time war would be logical points, those two times are good because you can cast young actors to place the first or eighth. The only problems is if they're not suitably epic (or even are), it will ruin the air of mystery that has developed around the Doctor.
 

Erja_Perttu

New member
May 6, 2009
1,847
0
0
WolfThomas said:
An origin story or the time war would be logical points, those two times are good because you can cast young actors to place the first or eighth. The only problems is if they're not suitably epic (or even are), it will ruin the air of mystery that has developed around the Doctor.
Yeah, you'd need to get the right actor for the role. Get the wrong and the whole thing would tank!

I'd give it a good go, but in the end, that movie would have to be pretty special to measure up to the watermark that is Blink (maybe they could get Carey Mulligan back?).
 

Xmaspast

New member
Sep 11, 2011
43
0
0
Malconvoker said:
I really want to start in on Doctor Who. Maybe this will be a good way to start. Or I could try to find it on Netflix if I get it.
This wont' be out for a good three or four years. Get Netflix and just watch all the new ones there. And when you're comfortable with the concepts then tr to watch some of the old ones. The general rule that I've found is that if you try to watch the old ones first you'll be bored and just stop.
 

Xmaspast

New member
Sep 11, 2011
43
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Personally, I like Moffat's method of having multi-season arcs better than Davies' thing where there's a running theme throughout the series, and then suddenly in the last three or four episodes we get a finale out of nowhere that neatly creates and wraps itself up. I'm not expecting a LOST style myth arc, but I have no problem with stories that take more than one season to pay off.
Personally, I'm more fond of Moffat's method of not having complete ass-pulls and cop-outs as season finishers. Though I'm less fond of series six, for a lot of reasons, one of which being the "solution" to the series seems like something Davies would pull.

Series five is undoubtedly my favourite of the revised series, and a lot of that deals with the long game. But series six starts and he starts doing all sorts of weird stuff...This need to constantly separate and re-united Rory and Amy from the Doctor. Completely dropping, far as I can tell, the mystery of the exploding TARDIS, even though that was the one thing that seemed to have the Doctor's attention at the end of 5. If this was addressed in the last couples eps, my apologies. They started with a situation we knew could not hold. While you can argue "It's the journey, not the destination," they didn't particularly make the journey something enjoyable. The River Song thing seemed rushed to me, condensed to one season for one of many possible reasons. And while I ADORE River Song, by the end, even I was agreeing with her critics. It didn't feel like much got really resolved in all this, either.
My point exactly. Davies has no idea how to build up to a finale; it just shows up out of nowhere right at the end. I guess I see where you're coming from with the current finale (especially because it doesn't mesh with what Eccleston showed us happens when someone screws up a fixed point in time), but it still fit better than a lot of what Davies did. Also, nice to see another fan of series 5; I remember hearing all the complaints about the episode with the Daleks in World War II and thinking "what are you guys complaining about? This is classic Who right here."
Moffat can build up to a conclusion but then when the conclusion comes it always feels underwhelming. That's happend in both 5 and 6 for me. Moreso in series six. I spent that whole episode giddy as a schoolgirl to find out how they'd get around it. And then it was kind of a deus ex machina.
 

Sylocat

Sci-Fi & Shakespeare
Nov 13, 2007
2,122
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Sylocat said:
I don't think "silliness" or "cheesiness" is the problem, especially given that this season had plenty of serious and dramatic moments (though the best ones all seemed to be in the one-off episodes, which weren't written by Moffat...). The problem is... well, there's the fact that each time the season-arc gave us a cool setup, the payoff was completely idiotic, even by Doctor Who standards, and they didn't even have the excuse of being exciting or interesting or even symbolic... and, oh yeah, it took River Song and reduced her into something so pathetically soppy that even Stephanie Meyer wouldn't write her.

Seriously, I wanted to grab Moffat and yell, "Who are you, and what did you do with the person who wrote 'The Girl in the Fireplace'?"

So yeah, after watching "The Wedding of River Song," I'm much more open to the idea of David Yates giving us a big-screen origin story. So long as they don't try any bullshit like revealing the Doctor's name or making him a gun-toting action hero (and this movie is under the BBC umbrella, so...), I'm good.
That's a matter of opinion. Personally, I like Moffat's method of having multi-season arcs better than Davies' thing where there's a running theme throughout the series, and then suddenly in the last three or four episodes we get a finale out of nowhere that neatly creates and wraps itself up. I'm not expecting a LOST style myth arc, but I have no problem with stories that take more than one season to pay off.
Uh, my problem with Moffat is not the fact that he has "stories that take more than one season to pay off." I'm not sure where you got that from my post. My problem is that the pay offs themselves have been awful.

1. The Doctor's death at the lake is a Fixed Point in time that will cause all of reality to collapse if it doesn't take place... but substituting a robot clone is okay?

2. And River refuses to go through with it until she learns this, because she loves the Doctor soooooooooooooo much that her love for him is more important than the lives of every living thing in the entire history of the universe put together.

Zachary Amaranth said:
Personally, I'm more fond of Moffat's method of not having complete ass-pulls and cop-outs as season finishers.
He doesn't?

Season Five's ending only happened because the Pandorica was designed (for some weird reason that is never really explained and doesn't fit with the Pandorica's purpose at all) to restore stuff placed inside it with its Magic Healing Light, and because the collapse of the universe suddenly allows the Doctor to cross his own timeline and send back his Sonic Screwdriver to be used to extract his other one (and neither of these things is mentioned in any of the previous episodes, either, so there was zero foreshadowing).

You're right about the TARDIS blowing up, as well. Moffat seems to have completely forgotten about the question of who blew up the TARDIS and why. Not only is it not mentioned even once in the entire season (seriously, the fact that the universe blew up is mentioned only a couple of times in passing, and there is not even ONE mention of what caused it), but also, from what we see of the Silence, we have no clue how it could have furthered their ends in any way.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Sylocat said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Sylocat said:
I don't think "silliness" or "cheesiness" is the problem, especially given that this season had plenty of serious and dramatic moments (though the best ones all seemed to be in the one-off episodes, which weren't written by Moffat...). The problem is... well, there's the fact that each time the season-arc gave us a cool setup, the payoff was completely idiotic, even by Doctor Who standards, and they didn't even have the excuse of being exciting or interesting or even symbolic... and, oh yeah, it took River Song and reduced her into something so pathetically soppy that even Stephanie Meyer wouldn't write her.

Seriously, I wanted to grab Moffat and yell, "Who are you, and what did you do with the person who wrote 'The Girl in the Fireplace'?"

So yeah, after watching "The Wedding of River Song," I'm much more open to the idea of David Yates giving us a big-screen origin story. So long as they don't try any bullshit like revealing the Doctor's name or making him a gun-toting action hero (and this movie is under the BBC umbrella, so...), I'm good.
That's a matter of opinion. Personally, I like Moffat's method of having multi-season arcs better than Davies' thing where there's a running theme throughout the series, and then suddenly in the last three or four episodes we get a finale out of nowhere that neatly creates and wraps itself up. I'm not expecting a LOST style myth arc, but I have no problem with stories that take more than one season to pay off.
Uh, my problem with Moffat is not the fact that he has "stories that take more than one season to pay off." I'm not sure where you got that from my post. My problem is that the pay offs themselves have been awful.

1. The Doctor's death at the lake is a Fixed Point in time that will cause all of reality to collapse if it doesn't take place... but substituting a robot clone is okay?

2. And River refuses to go through with it until she learns this, because she loves the Doctor soooooooooooooo much that her love for him is more important than the lives of every living thing in the entire history of the universe put together.

Zachary Amaranth said:
Personally, I'm more fond of Moffat's method of not having complete ass-pulls and cop-outs as season finishers.
He doesn't?

Season Five's ending only happened because the Pandorica was designed (for some weird reason that is never really explained and doesn't fit with the Pandorica's purpose at all) to restore stuff placed inside it with its Magic Healing Light, and because the collapse of the universe suddenly allows the Doctor to cross his own timeline and send back his Sonic Screwdriver to be used to extract his other one (and neither of these things is mentioned in any of the previous episodes, either, so there was zero foreshadowing).

You're right about the TARDIS blowing up, as well. Moffat seems to have completely forgotten about the question of who blew up the TARDIS and why. Not only is it not mentioned even once in the entire season (seriously, the fact that the universe blew up is mentioned only a couple of times in passing, and there is not even ONE mention of what caused it), but also, from what we see of the Silence, we have no clue how it could have furthered their ends in any way.
Alright, #1 is because the fixed point wasn't actually the Doctor's death -- it was the appearance of the Doctor's death. The universe at large had to think he was dead, but he didn't actually have to die. #2 is very much in character -- when has River /ever/ been one to give up just because a little thing like the laws of the universe said it was impossible? We also knew from her first appearance that she loved the Doctor, and it was implied that she would marry him (why else would she know his real name?), so no plot hole there. As for the other paragraph? That's a big part of the "multi season payoff" thing. Moffat hasn't forgotten about it, he's just taking his dear sweet time to resolve it -- it probably has something to do with the silence falling when the question is asked, which is going to happen no sooner than the finale of the next season.

Basically, the payoffs so far have felt somewhat wimpy because they aren't the full payoff; Moffat is giving us multiple smaller payoffs, instead of one big one at the end of every series.

Edit: Oh, and the "magic healing light" was there because the Pandorica was designed to keep its occupant alive and in suspended animation for eternity -- it was supposed to be the ultimate life sentence. The whole thing with the Doctor crossing his own time stream was just Moffat having fun with paradoxes. It was like the end of Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, if you're ever seen that, or the scene with The Master and The Doctor constantly going back in time and changing things to thwart each other in Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death if you haven't. Basically, it was an asspull, but not exactly one that's inconsistent with the way things work in this series.

Edit Edit: And if you can't suspend your disbelief well enough to handle something like that, Doctor Who really isn't your kind of sci-fi. It's always been kind of silly; Star Trek: The Motion Picture this ain't.
 

Cazza

New member
Jul 13, 2010
1,933
0
0
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


Not this kind of Doctor Who. The current doctors script writing is unbelievably bad. If they did it before the 10th Dr got all emo. Or the 9th. An Eccleston or Tennant (before that damn whining) Doctor would have been great. Not Smith. Rebooting the universe what is this I don't even. Then saving him from a fixed point in time. There is only so high you can go. I doubt the movie will be any good.
 

Sylocat

Sci-Fi & Shakespeare
Nov 13, 2007
2,122
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Edit Edit: And if you can't suspend your disbelief well enough to handle something like that, Doctor Who really isn't your kind of sci-fi. It's always been kind of silly; Star Trek: The Motion Picture this ain't.
Suspension of disbelief isn't the problem. I just get irritated when the fanbase bends over backwards to excuse Moffat for things that they would be demanding RTD's head on a platter for.

when has River /ever/ been one to give up just because a little thing like the laws of the universe said it was impossible? We also knew from her first appearance that she loved the Doctor, and it was implied that she would marry him (why else would she know his real name?), so no plot hole there.
I could have bought this if the dialogue or presentation was better, but instead, they made River Song talk and act like Bella Swann from Twilight.

And it's not that she refused to give up in the face of impossible odds, it's that she explicitly stated that even if it were impossible and she knew that it would destroy the universe, she still wouldn't do it, just because it would hurt her feelings so much.

That too is just indicative of another problem with River Song: They have reduced her from a strong and mysterious figure to a whining groupie. Over the course of the season, we have learned that not only is she so devoted to the Doctor that she would condemn the whole of the universe to oblivion rather than be the one to kill him, but also, we've learned that she has had no independence from the Doctor at any point in her life; he's been the instigator of her birth, her childhood and her adult life as well as her death, and not only did she die in the Library, but she had already given up all her remaining regenerations to save him in 1940s-Germany. She was once this quirky, challenging figure who could tell the Doctor off and whose sacrifice MEANT something, but now what she did in the Library means nothing because she's already done it several times, and he's basically her "creator" anyway.