Review: Doctor Who, The Rebel Flesh/Almost People : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
||||||
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
| 16 |
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
31
|
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I didn't love this episode, but I enjoyed it more than the first two episodes of the season... and more than most of S5 ("Vincent and the Doctor" being the only one I rewatch more than simply 'in passing')
It wasn't a great episode, but it was good for what it was. Are there things we're expected to buy into? (IE: Acid mining, etc.) Of course! But, really, that's the nature of Doctor Who, and, for me? This was easier to buy into than most of last season.
Clarification
But as I said to someone up above, I'm think of doing a re-watch of series one and two, if only to see whether I've changed or the program has.
(no subject)
Just as it changed (In my childhood memories) from Four's time to Five's time.
Just as it changed from "Survivor" to the Television Movie to the 2005 series.
But it's a bit of apples and oranges. It would be best to compare Series 5 and 6... and Moff's other works - not the whole series.
A *bit* of apples and oranges, yes
It would be best to compare Series 5 and 6... and Moff's other works - not the whole series.
To a certain extent, I think you make a good point. Moff vs Moff makes some sense. But at the same time, so does good writing vs bad writing, and it makes a lot more sense to use examples that most of the people reading this are likely to be familiar with (eg, "Almost People" against "Fear Her" (though those even have the actual writer, if not show-runner in common) than it would be to bring in, say, Joanna Russ' The Female Man.
And as I type, I realize my reaction to your comment is changing. Let me start again.
Change is not change is not change. Change isn't "all good". Some changes are neutral but others frankly for the better or for the worse.
Doctor Who has been lucky enough that many of its changes of direction have actually been relatively neutral, but some of them have been god-awful. The television moving being a case in point. It's not quite as bad as some people say, but as a 90 minute drama it's pretty mediocre. Paul McGann did quite a lot more with the material than anyone could have asked him to, but that doesn't stop the material from being pretty lousy.
And I fear that that is going to be posterity's take on Moffat's era. Or at least, that it will remain mine. (Others, of course, are free to disagree; there are better and worse arguments in literary debates but no absolute right/wrong answers.)
(no subject)
You'd be surprised how much shows change with something as simple as different producers (Ala Phil Collinson).
In the case of Series 5, EVERYTHING was changed: Head writer, other writers, directors, producers, actors, etc. etc. Heck, even being in HD changed things when you compare "Planet of the Dead" to "Runaway Bride"
So what can you possibly use as a base-line between say "Doctor's Wife" and "End of the World"? Unless you're planning on comparing Doctor Who to everything else out there, which is a bit silly, considering the history and breadth that DW has.
Which is why I suggest to compare Series 5 to 6, you'll have a base-line then to draw your comparisons. Unless you're going to compare each area. And if so? Good luck, because that's gonna take you awhile.
Also, what are you using as your criteria for the different areas, say: "good writing" vs. "bad writing"?
Case in point: the 1997 movie Titanic was a CRAP script. No really, I've read the script. It was crap. But watching the movie you would never know that! (The fact that Titanic won Oscar for Best Movie that year and DiCaprio and Winslet didn't win anything is why I don't watch the Oscars anymore). The actors (and everyone else) took this crap script and made it into something positively BRILLIANT! You would never know how bad that script was without reading it.
My point is: So many elements go into a show, you need know which are the 'good' vs. the 'bad' elements first. Otherwise, how do you tell which element is causing the failure vs. success?
The script remains the same
So what can you possibly use as a base-line between say "Doctor's Wife" and "End of the World"? Unless you're planning on comparing Doctor Who to everything else out there, which is a bit silly, considering the history and breadth that DW has.
As you do seem to appreciate, for me it all starts with the writing; directing, acting, etc, all can cover a lot of holes, but unless you're talking about improvisation, without a script you've got nothing.
I think if you go back to my recent posts, you'll see that I most am comparing Moffat to Moffat; I've been deliberately shying away from the RTD era simply because so many people will interpret anything I say about him (good or bad) as proof that I'm a hater (or otherwise).
Which I know, doesn't directly address your point.
That's because I think you're missing mine. You suggest I compare Series 5 to Series 6, but I really do see them as a whole, changes of producers or not. With a few exceptions (the Dalek episode, the first part of the Angels diptych, "The Lodger" and "Vincent and the Doctor") I think Series 5 suffered from more or less the same flaws that are ruining Series 6 for me. And honestly, of the episodes I mentioned, only the last one holds up in my restrospective mind's eye..
To make a long story short, I think Moffat is calling the shots more than anyone else and so, if you like what you're seeing on-screen, he deserves the credit and, if you don't, the blame.
You ask how I can tell which elements are the good and which the bad when critiquing a particular production. And there's some truth in that. But when the script makes no sense, when it's characters take stupid or improbable actions simply to serve the plot, and when dialogue intended to be clever or witty just lies there like a stunned cow on an abattoir floor, then I don't need to make excuses for it by blaming a change in the production team or a budget cut.
I have very explicitly compared these episodes with Neil Gaiman's about which I don't think I had anything bad to say, and surely you're not telling me the production department was responsible for the success of "The Doctor's Wife"?
I think I am in fact doing what you're asking me to do (though not only that), and much of Moffat's (or rather, the Moffat-headed) productions simply don't stand up as well-crafted works of drama.
(I recently saw Titanic for the first time, and I agree that the script was pretty bad — maybe not as bad as you thought it was, but pretty bad — and I didn't read it. It was a passable entertainment, though and, you're right, that's because Cameron really knows his way around a Camera, the production values were pretty good, and the principal actors sold their lines very well indeed. But what does that have to do with the crap scripts that are getting made by the Doctor Who gang?)
Re: The script remains the same
SM's era is much more murky. Because there are some things that might be director's/actor's choice, but because as you say, the Moff likes control, those might be dictated in the script as well. It is much more difficult to tell where one line ends and the other begins. That's my only point. My problem is I'm personally not interested enough to care enough to sort it for Moff's era.
Re: A *bit* of apples and oranges, yes
(This is said, however, by someone who thought Series 1 was fantastic because it beautifully melded plot-filled storytelling with RTD's "all emotion, all the time" strong suit but that Series 2 through 4 where a depressing downward spiral with little bright moments here and there. And the less said about the "Specials Series", the better.)
Re: A *bit* of apples and oranges, yes
I got bored. Really, truly, that was the problem with S05 for me. I stopped watching at The Lodger because the effort involved in locating the show on iPlayer was greater than the expected reward in mindless entertainment. I mean, I watch Glee and I used to watch Hotel Babylon. Mindless entertainment is definitely a thing I can live with.
When I watch Glee or Hotel Babylon, I'm at least engaged at the level of 'I like some of these characters'. They pay back the minimal effort required to turn them on. S05 hasn't even managed that for me.
(I do agree with you about RTD's all-emotion problem, but at least I liked his characters when they weren't whining. The specials were dire though.)
Re: A *bit* of apples and oranges, yes
Even when you're looking forward to change, it can still be difficult. I think children may have it easier in this regard, but even much-anticipated change can be hard to digest as you get older. For me, I went into Series 5 (and I have to admit I'm behind on watching --- I'll catch them all eventually) not so much with a "different is good" attitude, but with a "different will be different, so try to have zero expectations on all levels." It works for me. That, and the fact that the amount of time I'm willing to put into tracking down a program is inversely proportional to the amount of truly free time I have on my hands. 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.
I'm at least engaged at the level of 'I like some of these characters'.
True, there has been a definite shift on DW from focusing on weekly character development as a means of getting us invested in the show (which has its downside --- a character who has an epiphany every week can never grow because they keep getting wiped clean; the mentioned whining can never end as a result) to developing a story. To me, that approach is more reminiscent of Classic Who than prior seasons. Not to say everything's perfect now, but it's at least it carries the comfort of familiarity.
Re: A *bit* of apples and oranges, yes
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.
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
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
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
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
I guess whether they have antlers depends on the gender of the person who wrote the teal deer?