Lil's things

The Name of the Doctor: Review (spoilers)

Ok, so this time Who took the biscuit. It took the cake. IT TOOK MY WHOLE GODDAMNED SMORGASBORD

Writing, design, score, FX… WHAT HAPPENED?? The whole experience is made so much WORSE because so much of it is already GOOD (namely acting performances and initial premises) but it is made so BAD, like a delicious morsel of cake which we are only served after it passes through Steven Moffat’s digestive system and is served to us as a dollop of shit.

Let’s start with Clara. I’ve already written about how there has been some lazy storytelling with ciphers this season; Clara herself was shown to be one great big cipher, one great big plot resolution disguised as a character.

Who is she? After this episode, the question has not yet been answered and this is unsatisfactory. She is His Impossible Girl? No. That tells us nothing. Nothing about the nature of her character. She is a Nanny. Getting warmer… she perhaps has a nurturing nature. What else? Where was she born? What are her aims? What are her fears? Can she do anything else but make quips and ask questions? What is her essential nature?

This is writing 101. And sure, all companions could be said to have very similar essential natures… they are inquisitive, brash, have wanderlust, have a strong moral sense of what is right and wrong. It is from a character’s essential nature that a story is derived. Joe thinks stealing is wrong. He can’t afford the medicine that will save his baby girl. BAM, instant plot- his essential nature as a moral person is challenged. That’s a story right there. Will he steal the medicine and betray himself, or will he let his daughter die?

In Dr Who, plot is often derived from the Doctor’s alien moral nature versus the human companion who is often appalled at the difference in what is acceptable to them as moral beings. The Doctor is also inspired by this difference and it differentiates him from the other Time Lords. (How often have Sarah or Jamie berated him for seeming inhuman, or reversely even, how often did the Doctor have to challenge Leela’s essential nature and stop her from killing?)

What is Clara’s essential nature? I don’t really know, she appears to be a cookie cutter companion without a solid foundation. Sure, she’s plucky, bright, morally upright… but why? Sarah Jane did it because she wanted to be a good journalist, Rose did it because she wanted to escape her humdrum life (and yes, that is a good reason!) Why does Clara care about humanity? Because she’s a human? Not good enough. Because she is a nanny and cares for children and their welfare? That would do, if only we had even the slightest exploration of the reasons she decided to become a nanny!

Which brings me to the most offensive point: She exists to save the Doctor. She was brought in to the world on a leaf*, lives a thousand different hollow lives to save him. She exists to facilitate his living. (River Song is another female character who exists to facilitate the Doctor’s living). What a revolting idea. She is portrayed with no inner life, no life outside of the Doctor, the emotions she exhibits range from quirky/witty/pleasant to a solitary tear running down her cheek… where is the real person?

It makes me so angry because this has been a very Moffatt trend in female characters… they exist (and die) for the Doctor’s sake, and enable his Cosmic Man Grieving. I’m fucking sick of White Man Grieving on television. There was also the dawning horror afterwards that Clara, in the flashbacks to her involvement with previous doctors, was dressed like previous companions. Is the implication here that Clara is actually all the companions the Doctor has had? I tell you what, it had better bloody not be because not only is that the most egoistic dump that Moffat could take on a television institution, but also counter to the nature of the series itself… the Doctor loves humanity. Not a pre-determined interaction with a cipher-character designed to engineer his protection, but the random, the new, the child born in 5th century China to the old man in the year 3495. He thrives on danger, on the random and unpredictable and the thought that women characters are sacrificing their very natures and existences to facilitate what is characterised as a man-child’s romp through space…

…let’s just say that Sarah Jane would not put up with that bullshit. She was a card carrying member of women’s lib back in the 70’s and it is pretty darn upsetting that in FORTY YEARS things haven’t changed much.

* “carried into the world on a leaf” sounds very beautiful, but it ultimately lacks substance because it’s the show attempting to create it’s own significant lore (“impossible girl”, “leaf girl”) without the history to accompany the lore. Sarah Jane left a legacy because of all the episodes she was in, the fan following over the years, her bright character, the sheer history of it… you can’t create that artificially. Like Lady Gaga trying to write a gay anthem. She’s not the one who gets to decide it!

Other nonsense:

I’m not even going to touch River Song. I’ve written at length before about how introducing sexuality to the Doctor’s character ruins him completely, about how their supposed “relationship” is extremely unhealthy and disturbing… frankly I disagree with the characterisation of the Doctor as someone who “can’t stand endings” to the point that he would inflict emotional harm on someone (and River as someone who would put up with it because “love”)
(and I hate it so much because Matt is such a superb, fine actor and he makes the material so real, even if the material is just bollocks)

FX: Whoever did that superimposition job with the old footage ought to be ashamed of themselves, and learn a bloody lesson from this year’s Eurovision. IF EUROVISION IS DOING IT BETTER THAN YOU, YOU GOTTA WONDER WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE INDUSTRY
(Honestly, Blake’s 7 looks better than whatever was going on there)

Design: Slightly worse than the FX team. GIANT TOMBSTONE TARDIS? Y’know… sure, I can appreciate the idea of some warped, Evangelion-esque giant decaying world, a fallout of catastrophic proportions heralding the Doctor’s death. They didn’t pull it off. We’ve had far too many catastrophic ‘universe-ending’ type epic stories lately that to pull this off would mean a huuuuge amount of intimate character pieces prior to this, a better build up. As it is, it just looked tacky and also oddly understated. If you’re going to put 40-odd years of history into a design, splicing the occasional clip isn’t going to do it. You need to address everything. ‘TARDIS slightly overgrown with weeds’ is not suitably epic. If they were aiming for ‘decay’, then the electric visualization of the idea of a timestream ruined the effect. Why is the concept of ‘time energy’ always electric like that, anyway? Why can’t it be a pool of mercury? A fuzzy wobble? A black hole? Why is it always so literal?!

Score: Nil points. I didn’t like the orchestral sound from the beginning of Ecclestone’s run, and the soapy climaxes in emotional moments just really don’t work for me. It’s like everything is paint-by-numbers… emotional climax? Sweeping violins! Check! Action scene? Syncopated rhythm and brass! Check! We’ve heard these scores a million times before… they don’t sound alien, they don’t sound new or unusual, they just sound by the book. They don’t add anything to the drama, they just mark what you’re meant to be feeling at any one moment and it’s not working.

So Lil if you hate it all so much why do you watch it?

Apart from sadism and loyalty to a show that was much better 30 years ago… there are some fine elements. Matt is a terrific actor, and Vastra, Jenny & Strax are such a beautiful little trio that I wonder what they’re even doing in the show. The ideas themselves have interesting origins… I love the idea of the horror of knowing your own grave is somewhere out there in time and space, I enjoyed the telepathic conference and Jenny’s lingering spirit. Science fiction is a hotbed of fascinating ideas you won’t get anywhere else! And the concepts can produce some of the simplest, most compelling emotional drama, time travel especially! Some of the ideas recently have been quite interesting but their execution has left so much to be desired. I guess it’s like Clara baking her souffles… all the ingredients are right but they just don’t work.

I know what the problem is, it’s the chef

And now for the 50th it looks like we’re addressing blah blah cosmic guilt blah blah totally not subtle YOU ARE NOT THE DOCTOR, DOCTOR = GOOD, YOU = BAD, I KILLD MENY PEEPLE BECAUWS OF BAD WAR blah blah totally hackneyed destruction of Gallifrey which never should have been approved in the first place, saddling a character with eternal miserable guilt that is totally antithesis to the idea of the show (mischievous yet noble guilt felt at having abandoning the time lords is totally different and quite alright)

Ok, I’m done.

“According to Doctor Who Magazine, David Tennant will be the only returning Doctor. The new issue (#460) confirms that no other classic Doctors will be back.

The mag states: “Although David Tennant has returned to his role of the Tenth Doctor, the other old Doctors will not be taking part.”

They confirm earlier reports that Christopher Eccleston was initially approached to reprise his role, but was unable to do so unwilling to participate in a Moffat masturbatory clusterfuck and preferred it when Tennant wasn’t the awkward Converse-clad posterchild for tweenage fans worldwide parroting catchprases and clamoring for inappropriate badly written romance where genuinely interesting and coherent science fiction ideas once existed instead

I am a little bitter about Moffatt

dimensionsintime:

jonxdaenerys:

borderlineotaku:

thetasrose:

adventure-scape:

can i just say i really hope Doctor Who survives to see its 100th anniversary?

Can you imagine those of us who may still be alive? We may break a hip from all the excitement.

David Tennant will be 91, Matt Smith will be 80, Billie Piper will be 80, Karen Gillan will be 75, Arthur Darvill will be 80 and Jenna Louise Coleman will be 76. Sooo technically they might all be able to appear in a 100th anniversary !!!

Just like the Classic Series Doctors are appearing in the 50th. Oh wait.

Am I being overly bitchy in that I can’t wait for the 100th when the Newvians have to go through what we’re going through now?

You’re assuming that Newvians would even stick around that long and aren’t just jumping on the latest fad…

True fandom takes decades, kids.

(Source: liveforthefiction, via dimensionsintime)

The Rings of Akhaten - review (or storytelling with ciphers)

When I was about six, we used to play this black and white game on the Macintosh called Gauntlet. As you can imagine, the screen was about as big as a postcard, and I don’t think shades of grey existed either. There was an enemy in this game, however, called Death… Death was amorphous and black and if it managed to touch your character, it would suck the life force from you with the most horrid sound. You could not defeat Death*. You would watch while the life was drained out of your character and there was nothing you could do. The only way to continue was to avoid Death and boy did that blob of pixels terrify the shit out of me. It still does and I’m a few years off thirty.

(*shh I know how that you can but I was six at the time)

When I first saw the Vigil, I was reminded of Death. What a brilliant creepy design. Imagine them undefeatable… imagine them like Death. If they touch you, they drain your life force, or your emotional force and you can’t let go. You can only hide, like Clara and the little girl.

To have the Doctor defeat them in seconds with the Sonic Screwdriver not only destroyed any menace they had, but showed again what is happening to this series… storytelling with ciphers. A cipher is a nothing, a symbol of something else. It says “this is the plot device that we are using to defeat the enemy this week”. The Doctor using the sonic screwdriver has almost become as farcical as if he were to press a button marked ‘defeat enemy’…. and it was the same last week with Clara and her sudden computer ability. “This is the plot device that we are using to explain how Clara obtained information about the secret organisation.”

HOW?!?! What network was she connected to? How does being ‘uploaded’ into the system confer computer knowledge on an individual? What ‘cloud’ was everybody uploaded to?

More importantly, if Clara had obtained knowledge in the process of being digitised… where is the emotional fallout of that?! Why is she not questioning it, exploring it, testing it, affected by her experience!?

It’s because it was only a plot point, a nothing, a cipher to mark where the story was being resolved. And that is disgraceful writing. It is lazy and dull. I’m not asking for a detailed explanation of every single computer protocol ever… just some universe and character building to make this thing feel real to me. And that’s the problem with Moffatt’s writing… his universes and characters are so inconsistent that he can’t do that because his stories fall apart.

Ciphers for storytelling. That’s what the sonic screwdriver was this week. What wasn’t a cipher was the use of emotional song to defeat the alien. Now, I usually detest that kind of rising orchestral emotional nonsense , but I didn’t mind it this week because it was coherent. The alien feeds on emotional energy. Thus we will defeat it by overfeeding it emotional energy. Simple. I kind of hate the ‘eternal suffering’ characterisation of the Doctor but Matt has acting chops enough to pull it off. I can’t even complain about his apparent years of suffering being defeated by a leaf because the idea was coherently explained. The infinite possibility of an unknown future is more powerful than the finite nature of the past. That’s very poetic.

If I had to rewrite this episode I would get rid of the ridiculous emotional orchestral score (less is more, people, less is more) and minimise those dramatic zooms. A bit more building of Clara’s emotional life and exploit those wonderful Vigil a bit more. Characters can trick or avoid them rather than unleash the ol’ Sonic Cipher-Driver on them. They’re so lovely and creepy, I was quite disappointed they fell over with some green light.

Okay, lets get some things straight as to why season 6 of Doctor Who is a mindfuck and upsets me to no end

linear-relationships:

(And before you say it, I KNOW I take this show too seriously… *weeps*)

But seriously guys; I DID A LOT OF FUCKING REASEARCH SO THANK YOU, I have ALL YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS HERE. I’VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS A LOT and discovered a lot along the way.

Lets define something first.

The Silence: A religious cult that includes, although not limited to, the infamous species of alien that when viewed is forgotten when one looks away, although when seen again, all previous memory of it is retained. The aim of the religious cult is so stop the question that shall never be asked from being answered, which is ‘doctor who’. Referring to the identity, or true name of The Doctor, an alien (Time Lord) from the planet Gallifrey and known for defending the earth mercilessly from other life forms.

Okay, now that we understand that.

Things that are established in the first episode of season 6, ‘The Impossible Astronaut’:

1. Someone dressed in an astronaut suit that appears out of a lake must for some reason KILL The Doctor and the doctor allows them to do so. 
2. If they don’t then this will go against a fixed point in time and space. The DOCTOR MUST DIE!!!!!

Now…

Why did The Silence KIDNAP RIVER SONG??

This is one of the complicated parts.

Read More

THANK YOU. And the “but it’s science fiction you can do whatever you want” argument is frankly balls because it’s still a story that needs to make sense. There’s still a universe that has rules. If you’re going to invest in a story, that story needs to have even the vaguest sense of consistency. You wouldn’t invest your money in shares that changed their parameters at the drop of a hat… it’s the same with stories and emotions.

The Bells of St John review (spoilers)

Sigh

Remember when you could tell companions apart through their dialogue without relying on catchphrases?

The more of it I watch, the more I get frustrated because we see Moffat’s ego stamps all over the place;

Rushed “witty” dialogue in place of character development
A quick flirty exchange does not development or humour make. Clara is about as dead as the androids in this episode. What does she want? “To travel”. Same as every companion, ever. What distinguishes her from everyone else? Tegan, Peri, Nyssa, Sarah… they were all thin, white, young female companions but at least their characters are unique and distinct in their wants and needs and turn of phrase. Rose too, at the beginning.

There’s no chemistry between Clara and the Doctor. There’s no character arc to be resolved. He has to speak the reason she is ‘interesting’ out loud for us to even buy it — ‘Who are you, Clara Oswold’…. the mystery is so lacking that even his stating it doesn’t make us necessarily care. I’ve forgotten why she was “special” in the first place. Certainly her character alone doesn’t make her “special” and that is the fundamental error in Moffat’s writing. What does she want? What does she fear? That we can’t answer these fundamental questions about her within three episodes is a sign of really bad writing.

I mean… James Cordon’s character in the Lodger had more of a personality, as a one-off appearance.

Who: average man. Wants: the girl. Fears: his weird new guest will ruin his life and chances with the girl.

BAM there’s a plot right there! Tied in to character. It doesn’t even need to be science-fiction…. it’s all tied up in the character, the conflicts, the arc, et cetera. Classic storytelling.

That Clara’s reactions are so dead and uninteresting just makes me despair. What does she feel about this crazy man knocking on her door? How does she feel about being granted abilities not her own? What about the kids she supposedly cares (and worries) for? She doesn’t even ask the Doctor who he really is, doesn’t investigate, just magically solves a hacking problem by ‘hacking’ with magical ‘hacking’ ability conferred on her. Nothing to distinguish her as unique entity with her own traits bar some catchprases.

And speaking of hacking… PLEASE MOFFAT DO NOT SUBSTITUTE THOSE AWFUL ADOBE AFTER EFFECTS NASTY SHERLOCK TEXT EFFECTS FOR PLOT DEVELOPMENT.
Please also try to write about technological concepts of which you are INFORMED. Do you know what the cloud is? You can bet that your young audience does. And I bet I’m not the only one wondering how joining a wi-fi network translates into being uploaded “into it”. Give us a semi-plausible reason! Is it through the camera of the device? An electric field? Give us SOMETHING Moffat, because pretending to type while splaying ‘hacker code’ across the screen is just not working and is a poor, lazy substitute for universe-building. It is just purely awful.

I mean… why would you watch this episode again? There’s no human element to connect to. The most touching element was Celia Imrie as a lost child in an adult’s body, a terribly sad moment that was testament to the acting more than anything else. The elements that could have been exploited for emotional effect - being trapped permanently in cyberspace, being trapped and never able to return because your body is gone, claustrophobia at being surrounded by wireless…

…they weren’t exploited and the frustrating thing is that this is expected of Moffat by now. He simply does not write characters, he writes witty lines and turnabout plot points and it’s not just me… more and more members of the Who community are no longer bedazzled by the firecracker “wit” and flirty companions and just want a good old sensible story again.

(Can I also say that the production is looking less and less like the Who I remember… to be honest, the opening looked straight out of Sherlock and we all know how I feel about Sherlock >:(

Bloody Moffat and his bloody nerve “I tried to hire female writers but there weren’t any! :D :D :D” fuuuuu

spoilers for christmas nonsense

I just can’t bear it anymore. The Christmas special had some of the most beautiful imagery and potentially (let me stress the ‘potentially’) frightening monsters but once again I left feeling absolutely nothing. I swear I’m getting more of an emotional response watching My Little Pony these days and I refuse to entertain the notion that this is a reflection on me rather than the writing. I have taste, dammit!

Such a shame, because that staircase (minus the set lighting) was stunning, and the snowmen could have been so wonderfully evil (especially with a little blood on their teeth)… why couldn’t we have seen more of them?!

I’m pretty sure I know why it is. It’s Moffatt and his Special White Girl addiction taking over the joint and trashing it. I’ll try to be concise;

- we can’t have a ‘normal’ companion/character. No Jamies or Victorias or Tegans ever again. She has to be the Doctor’s One True Love, or his first ‘imprint’ or his ‘wife’ or a mysterious figment of the universe or some bloody nonsense.
why this is wrong: the Doctor loves humanity in and of itself. They don’t have to have a special caveat for him to take notice. He loves humanity; he loves mundanity. As a cosmic being who has seen the vistas of space and time, he’s enthralled by the minutiae of life. The trainspotters. The collectors. They don’t have to be bloody ~space figments~ or ~special~ for him to think they’re special.

- we can’t have a single bloody companion go through without kissing the Doctor and bringing sexuality into the equation. WHY? WHY THE FUCK WHY?
why this is wrong: I’ve gone on at length previously about why the Doctor’s sexuality should never be explored, and it has to do with his character archetype as a wizard/teacher/mentor. The idea of a hundred-year-old being having that kind of relationship with fledgling human girls of 20 is not only morally suspect but corrupts the beautiful narrative of a child encountering the wonders of the universe. My favored narrative is what Rose’s (or Donna’s)should have been… of a directionless person being shown a life beyond what they’re currently living, and then realising or choosing what it is they really want. A growing-up narrative, especially pertinent for a children’s show. Which leads me to the next point;

- Moffat’s characterisation of the Doctor is awful; it’s paternalistic and sexist and inevitably leads us down the horrid road of the Doctor feeling sorry for himself. “I’m responsible for her. It’s all my fault. I’m so, so sorry.” Jesus Doctor.
This one is a difficult one because certainly the Doctor has an ego. I would be contradicting myself to say that a paternalistic trait isn’t one that I desire, because it ties in with the ‘mentor’ archetype mentioned above. Moderation is required, however. Considering the actor is required. Matt has been put through so many different incarnations of the Doctor feeling sorry for himself and alienating himself (hurr) that I worry the man is getting bored. (not to mention it’s less convincing each time, not as a fault of his acting but of the familiar pattern repeating itself a la Morgana’s constant defeats throughout the series of Merlin).

- BLOODY TALKY FAST WITTY DIALOGUE WITH NO BREATHING SPACE TALKY FAST TALKY FAST KEEP UP KEEP UP DON’T BOTHER SECOND GUESSING THE PLOT NOT ENOUGH TIME TO DO BLOODY TALKY FAST WITTY WORDS OUT MY ARSE MAYBE IF WE TALK FAST IT WILL COVER THE ABSENCE OF PLOT

Give a girl time to encounter aliens! She barely batted an eyelid! If you’re giving us a period character, give us a period reaction (or at least a decent reason she’s not fazed by aliens).

Turns out we’re not getting a period character, anyway. Has to be somebody ~speshul~ and ~timey-wimey~ (I swear to god if I hear that infantile phrase one more time…)

Honestly, give me a career path to follow so I can be the showrunner one day and I’ll bloody do it (and hope it won’t be too late). You won’t be getting emo ipod TARDIS or lego daleks from me, but I can guarantee you a show that actually makes you feel something :/

Comments on comments on Angels take Manhattan (spoilers)

christeladina:

Yes, I was speaking of Amy as Amelia (when the Doctor met her, which is how he thinks of her). At least as far as the youth/”never let him see you old” thing goes. She was always, up until her final moment, that child. And I did not mean to imply that any other companion was more or less affected by the Doctor’s influence. However, I do think that the Doctor is more affected by Amy (and River) simply because of the fact that this is the most recent, most affecting example of his failures to his friends and to himself. I also think it presents/is displayed as more heart-wrenching because of who the Doctor is right now (as 11) and [this adolescent angsting you feel is overused] is a reflection of that. Not to mention, it’s a reflection of the current audience.

I’m not disagreeing that there are problematic issues with several characters, but I do disagree with your statement that his martyr complex (any more than his god complex, for that matter), his angst, and his guilt are inappropriate for an ancient character simply because he’s been through those things before. Because those things are all at the core of the character. Everyone has character flaws. His flaw is his character. His character is his flaw. Being The Doctor is a character flaw.

I see what you mean, and I didn’t mean to say that those things are inappropriate on the single grounds that they’ve happened before… more that it’s becoming an overwhelming aspect of him. I must confess that I didn’t like the Time War/ destruction of Gallifrey storyline from the very start, so my approach is already jaded… writing something that massive makes it difficult to move on. It will always come back to that for the Doctor. I don’t think that these elements belong to his character archetype. Guilt, perhaps, avoidance; definitely. Martyr complex and god complex less so, because this was a man who would leave a scene at a moment’s notice to avoid the attention. A man who pokes at goo for SCIENCE, not because it’ll get him a citation in Science magazine (or a Jesus TARDIS stained glass window in a church). I guess I disagree that this is who the Doctor is… it certainly makes an interesting discussion though, please don’t read me as being arrogant (even if my opinions… are… ok, never mind :3)

I also disagree with the idea that putting the universe in danger for the tenth time makes it less exciting than when it was done the first time. Although, sometimes a subsequent “BIG DANGER” is less spectacular than its predecessors, I really don’t think this is problem in the long run (the universe has been in danger thousands of times on this show, some are always going to be more dangerous than others, some are not going to live up to being the biggest, most unique dangers). I feel the same with the emotional drama; I’ve been watching The Doctor save the universe since 1977, sometimes I’m more invested than others but I’ve yet to tire of it.

As for these things ruining it for future writers (and, to a lesser extent, “ruining Matt”)… RTD’s reboot wasn’t ruined by any of the awful episodes of the early 1980s. The current regeneration is no more ruined by the sixth, seventh, and eighth Doctors than Pertwee’s or Baker’s were.

Fair enough, though I do worry about some of the themes (ie death of Gallifrey, omnipresent guilty) interfering. Fan’s annoying prerogative I suppose. Unfounded worry? JNT fans would probably say yes, hahaha

I do understand what you’re saying, though. But tt seems to me that what you have issues with might just be a formulaic style of episodic sci-fi/fantasy television. Because most of your complaints could be leveled at any series in the genre.

I will concede that Doctor Who makes full use of, and takes great, gleeful pleasure in, a certain, clever kind of cliché formula. Personally, I don’t consider that a flaw. 

I was going to say that Blake’s 7 doesn’t have that kind of formula, but that would be a massive lie. :’)

(Source: lileclaire)