Review: Doctor Who, The Rebel Flesh/Almost People

[ed_rex]

This is the way my fandom ends ...

There comes a point when intentions don't matter, but only results. Now six 45-minute episodes into his second series in charge of Doctor Who, Steven Moffat has this year given us precisely one (count it, one!) episode that was entertaining in and of itself and that didn't insult our intelligence.

I'm not an uberfan — I don't read novelizations or write fanfic — but I've watched a lot of episodes, in black and white and in colour, some of a lot more than once. And I can't recall seeing as consistent a stretch of bad writing, slip-shod plotting and ludicrous mis-characterizations as that which Moffat's run has so far provided us.

The fault this time out isn't Moffat's missing moral compass (see my reviews of the recent Christmas special or this series' two-part opener for my thoughts on that score) but just the remarkable shoddiness of the product.

After being teased into hoping for something better by Neil Gaiman's expert workshop in the fine art of story-telling a couple of weeks ago, "The Rebel Flesh" and "Almost People" (hereafter referred to as "Almost Rebels"), returns us to the inconsistent characterizations and nonsensical plots that have been the Mark of Moffat.

Now I can't bring myself to believe that Steven Moffat actually hates Doctor Who, but the on-screen results of his stewardship make that hypothesis as evidentially plausible as that which posits that he just doesn't understand the fundamentals of story-telling. (It shouldn't need saying, but for the record, I do know Moffat didn't write these episodes — direct responsibility rests with Matthew Graham, from whose keyboard came what was arguably the weakest episode of Series 2, "Fear Her". But Moffat is the show-runner and so ultimately responsible for what appears on our screens.

And what we do see once again leaves us — the viewers, the fans — with two choices. We can ignore the idiot plot in favour of speculations about the none-too-subtle clues About! Future! Episodes! or we can do the hard, unhappy work of picking apart the lousy construct.

(Yes, we could also turn off the set and go for a walk, or catch up as-yet unwatched episodes of Treme, but we are fans; walking away is not something we're willing to do, not yet.

So let's talk a bit about the basics of story-telling (again). Let's talk about such niceties as consistent characterization and internal logic as if they matter — even when slumming in the bastard field of children's science fiction.

(Why yes, I am kind of pissed off. There's cussing and spoilers both behind the link.)

Comments

Re: A *bit* of apples and oranges, yes

[charamei]

I'm sure that if I cared enough about anything to divert time and energy I could spend on something I like better/that is more productive to track down any show, then wait until it all finished downloading or whatever it's doing, I'd be much less tolerant of everything I watch.


Yeah, OK, I worded that badly. My point was that it's really easy to find new episodes of Doctor Who on iPlayer, because they tout it on the front page every week. It got to the point where I couldn't be bothered to type 'ipl' into Firefox's address bar and hit enter, then click a link. Which is the minimum amount of effort required for doing anything online anyway ;)

I liked Eleventh Hour and The Doctor's Wife, and I was mostly on board with the S05 finale. The majority of the other episodes... I like them intellectually, but I don't find them fun, and that's a killer for me when it comes to TV. If I want intellectual then I'll read Chaucer or try to translate Thucydides or do a crossword or something.

Watching a lot of Eleven's plots, for me, is kiiind of like watching a chess tournament. I can see that something very clever is going on, I can appreciate the cleverness of it, but socially speaking it's just some guys playing with their little puzzle. I'm completely locked out of the experience.

By comparison, something like Glee is the complete opposite, which is why I call it mindless entertainment. There's very little intellectual about it. It's completely silly, people spontaneously burst into song every chance they get, and it's all about engaging the audience. That actually doesn't work 100% on me either, because I do generally prefer to have my brain engaged, but. You don't get a much greater opposite to the chess tournament than a meaningful look and a spontaneous singalong, and oh, look, the band just happens to be standing by.

To me, that approach is more reminiscent of Classic Who than prior seasons.

Oh, yes, absolutely. But I liked those characters (except Mel. Yes, I even like Adric). I'm not after character development every week, I'm just after characters who I don't despise. I'm fond of Rory, I did like River but I'm steadily going off her the more I see of her, but don't get me started on Eleven or Amy. There's a massive difference between a cast of static characters who are likeable and enjoyable, and cast of a static characters who the viewer wishes would all get drowned together.

tl;dr: I get that change can be hard, but I honestly do just find Moffat's plots dull and Eleven and Amy soulless. There are good bits. For me, they don't make the bad bits worth it.

Re: A *bit* of apples and oranges, yes

[evilawyer]

Don't know that you worded anything badly. I pretty much assumed you have more patience than me, as I still haven't gotten over the fact that "lightening fast" in Comcast-speak still means I actually have to wait more than a 1/2 second in real time.

Fair enough as to the rest. At some point, it really does come down all to a matter of personal preference. For example, I love the movie "Pi" (actually, it was the symbol but I don't know how to get that off my keyboard); I think it's intellectually engaging and roller coaster ride emotional. On the other hand, one of my dearest friends with whom I agree on matters of taste more often than not found it utterly detestable because he found it more cerebral and thinking/paying attention-intensive than he'd thought it was going to be; this same friend loves all of Ten's tenure but won't watch anymore for, in part, similar reasons to yours. (He also won't watch Series 1 or any Classic Who with me beyond a very few of Five's episodes, so I'm sure there's a whole walloping dose of "Gimme teh pretty! Gimme smokin' hot, sexy-boy David Tennant right now! Gimme, gimme, gimme!" going on there, but there ya go. I love him all the same.) Taste and preference are as different as people, which is really a wonderful thing.

Old fogie here What is this tl; dr I keep seeing? (I could use Google, but I'm lazy, too.)

Re: A *bit* of apples and oranges, yes

[charamei]

tl;dr stands for 'too long; didn't read'. And because this is the Internet, and it is a strange and wonderful place, 'teal deer' stands for tl;dr which stands for...

It's definitely a large part personal preference with me, yes, which is why I'm doing my best to keep quiet and biding my time until Twelve turns up or Amy dies in a fire, whichever happens first. I do think there are writing problems there too, especially with River and the Doctor, but as you said - to each their own.

Re: A *bit* of apples and oranges, yes

[evilawyer]

tl;dr: Ha! Congrats on being the first person outside of real life that's ever said that to me. Thanks for the info. (But, I wonder -- do teal deer have antlers?)

Also thanks for the link to Twain. I hadn't read that essay in 30 years. Still love it.

Re: A *bit* of apples and oranges, yes

[charamei]

Well, I was saying it to me, really ;) It was used in the sense of 'I'm waffling; let me sum up'.

I guess whether they have antlers depends on the gender of the person who wrote the teal deer?