Doctor Who review: "The Curse of the Black Spot"

[ed_rex]

 

Some pirates, some curse

Good grief, but I'm getting tired of finding fault, but there really isn't much good to to say about the third episode of Stephen Moffat's second series in control of the TARDIS.

"The Curse of the Black Spot" is a fairly generic, back-in-time adventure featuring a mythical monster that (of course) is anything but supernatural. Or should have been.

In truth, it's quite a lot less than a generic episode. It makes "The Unquiet Dead", "Tooth and Claw" or "The Fires of Pompeii" (never mind the superior "The Shakespeare Code") seem almost brilliant by comparison.

Avast ye scurvy dogs! There be no sense, nor continuity in this week's episode! (But be on yer guard fer spoilers and the sound of one man cursing! Aaarggh! Or rather, Aauuggghh!)

Comments

[liviapenn]

Hi, please review the userinfo of this comm.

- Spoilers for recent and upcoming episodes should go behind a cut.

Thanks.

Well, okay ...

[ed_rex]

I've added a cut, but I don't think I spoiled anything that wasn't in last week's promo.

Re: Well, okay ...

[kouredios]

"featuring a mythical monster that (of course) is anything but supernatural."

Re: Well, okay ...

[liviapenn]

The guidelines of the comm don't say anything about trailers; a spoiler is defined as any info about a recent/upcoming episode. Thanks for editing.

[devohoneybee]

perhaps it would be better called "Curse of the lack of plot"?

[amihan]

1. Some of us have not yet seen the episode (Doctor Who has fans outside of UK and U.S. after all) and even if we do scroll past the entry, what has been read cannot be unread.

2. Good grief, but I'm getting tired of finding fault, but there really isn't much good to to say about the third episode of Stephen Moffat's second series in control of the TARDIS - Finding fault?

It's behind a cut now

[ed_rex]

Still, for future reference, would you mind telling me specifically what you objected to? As I said in my edit, I don't think what is here gives away anything that wasn't in the trailer broadcast after the second episode.

[jhumor]

I don't agree with you this time.... but I don't entirely disagree either

http://jhumor.dreamwidth.org/257515.html

Wait! What?

[ed_rex]

Thanks for the link — only, I think the only serious points of disagreement we have are (a) you enjoyed it until you thought about while I disliked it from the git-go and (b) you were less willing to credit Amy's sword-fighting than I was. (Mind you, now that I've thought about it, I'm having a harder time letting it go.)

Re: Wait! What?

[jhumor]

That probably a fair assessment :) Sorry I ruined something you were 'okay' with :S

[matgb]

adventure featuring a mythical monster that (of course) is anything but supernatural

There's spoiler number one. I figured it was an EMH just after they got the the spaceship, but that's definitely a spoiler for the phobes.

Spoiler 2 is, of course "it's a bit shit, isn't it", which some people like to figure out for themselves.

Thing is, having watched it twice, it's a bit shit by current expectations, if this'd be a Davison/BakerC era story, it'd have been a triumph.

Hmm ...

[ed_rex]

Re #1, I'm going to argue that my version was sufficiently vague as to get a pass, but since I'm relatively new to this community I won't argue too strenuously.

As for #2, isn't it better to let people know whether the review they're thinking of reading is positive or negative? After, shit/no shit is completely subjective, and so not spoilery.

Re: Hmm ...

[matgb]

I am unable to answer that question, as I'm the type who actively seeks out spoilers and speculation and then enjoys finding out how close we got it.

The mindset of the particularly spoiler averse is completely beyond me--I saw one person once write a long diatribe about how "Peter Parker is Spiderman" and "Tony Stark is Iron Man" are massive massive spoilers. This is roughly akin to "it's bigger on the inside" being considered a major spoiler...