DOCTOR WHO, in its 50th year, is showing distinct signs of age, if Saturday night's offering is anything to go by. That has to have been the shoddiest special effects I've seen in a long time, either on the programme itself or anywhere else. Was it really beyond their budget or ability to show a convincing shot of the Doc and Clara on a space shuttle-scooter-thingy-doo-dah (or whatever it was called) and not have it look like something out of BLAKE'S 7 ?
And the plot? O dear o lor'! Singing lullabies to an alien 'GALACTUS' to keep it asleep so it wouldn't consume the planet the intrepid time travellers were visiting. And how does the Doctor deal with the situation? Essentially, talks it into submission, while taking a leaf out of Clara's book (literally) and giving the big nasty alien thingy a dose of sensory overload. What a load of old pants!
Part of the problem, I believe, is that the writers are trying to be far too 'clever'. Instead of 'showing', they prefer to have the Doctor 'telling' - resulting in a running commentary of just how the frock-coated fruitie and his companion are going to defeat whatever menace threatens them 'this' week. Cue tedious exposition from the Doc as he goes over all the points that the budget (or the writers' lack of imagination) are unable to translate into visual terms. (A coherent plot at the outset would doubtless be a huge help in reducing the Doctor's incessant and annoying chatter, it seems to me.)
When one compares '60s STAR TREK at its best (CITY On The EDGE Of FOREVER, I ain't talking Tribbles), the show had a sophistication that Doctor Who has simply never been able to match. (Or even come close to, for that matter.) Although created by the Drama department and not the Children's, it seems to be aimed at juveniles or sub-literate adults who have never had a girlfriend and smell a bit funny. I hate to say it, but unless it gets its act together, maybe its upcoming 50th anniversary might be an ideal time for the BBC to wrap things up and draw them to a close.
Either that or bring back a WILLIAM HARTNELL-type Doctor (the slightly sinister version, not the benign grandfather he was turned into later) to give the show a bit of bite. Frankly, I'm tired of a supposedly thousand-odd year old Time Lord who behaves like a giggly, chatty teenager having heaps of jolly ol' fun in the face of impending danger. I sometimes think that '70s comedian DUNCAN NORVELLE (with his "Chase me!" catchphrase) would be the ideal candidate to play the Doctor, given the way the character is currently portrayed.*
Agree or disagree? You know where the comments section is.
******
*UPDATE: A mere two weeks later and, indeed, the Doctor utters the immortal line "Chase me!" to the Crooked Man in the episode entitled 'Hide'. I must be psychic.
16 comments:
I just caught up on my Who yesterday afternoon, and watched the first two episodes of this new season.
And I have to confess you make some good points. The Who franchise seems to be suffering from too much cuteness. The characters are a too smarmy and overly clever all the time. It's constant banter, at the expense of classic exposition.
The current Doc seemed like he was taking a more serious, more sinister turn with the Christmas story, but that seems to have gone by the wayside. I'd like to see him be a bit grittier, take his tasks a bit more seriously if you will. It all seems too much a lark.
They need to tell different stories. At least this season promised one-off tales, which will make them uneven at best, but I'm a bit weary of the epic back story for now. Better monsters are needed too.
I don't disagree that after the current Doc finishes up they should let the franchise rest a bit before moving on.
Rip Off
I haven't watched Who or any Telly for years so I can't really comment with any credibility on the current state of affairs but I have seen Ecclestone and Tennant in New Who. It kinda marked the end of my interest really, it's not that it was -all- bad, just mostly bad. Of course Old Who suffered a bit too, under the tenure of JNT, not necessarily because of him but because the BBC moved it into the Kid Zone. Certainly there are problems with the model for production at the BBC which means that they can't take advantage of the potential for lower production costs which probably explains the apparent low production values. There's a problem with writers too, the submission process there is er-- rather arcane. I suspect that's deliberate, to waylay the mountain of scripts from hopefuls, consigning them to a cul de sac.
TV production, in this country, though suffers from the same problems that permeate other means of cultural expression. It's ironic that in the age of diversity that we suffer from a drought of just that, there's too few main stream outlets for creative expression because of the rationalisation that has take place. Those that do exist are super-(c)onservative in their outlook producing mediocre stuff, in whatever field, be it TV, Film or publishing. That's the reason why the Beano ain't funny and Who isn't scary.
Interesting comments there, Rip and DSE. Let's see if anyone else has anything to add.
Having been a fan of the programme for as long as I can remember (though I did step back to nodding acquaintance during what passed as WHO in the 80s)it is hard to be too objective and I tend to cut it more slack than I would other series, however during this weeks episode my son and I did pass looks of 'what the hell is this?!" a couple of times, when not looking at the clock to see how much time was left. Never a good sign.
Did enjoy the previous week, despite the prevailing habit of having a lot of rapid-fire dialogue and running about ensue to cover the plot holes. With, it seems to me, probably one more year of the Smith / Moffat combo to go then it's under new management again both in front of and behind the cameras I am prepared to wait and see what a new creative team might bring.
I have just had a nice Easter break with my son (6) and we spent most of the time watching the many shall we call it "new Who" on netflix.
We are at the min up to series 4 episode 2 Tennant and Tate are the doctor and companion.
I can tell you that when they brought Who back the story lines have been very up and down some are very good and clever but some are instantly forgettable.
It's like the writers got bored some where around series 3 and decided to put this long winded sub plots that runs through the whole series that sometimes work and sometimes are a car crash.
just to be back up and keep people hooked/watching rather then have some sturdy well written stand alone episodes.
I have watch both episode of the new series and both have been poor and lacked something also why is the doctor not more cut up about the loss of his now trapped best friends miss Pond and Rory? hardly a mention as yet about them at all?
When tennant lost rose tiler he was cut up for the next 2 series but it takes smith a Christmas special and that's it all forgotten.
The only thing keeping me interested at the minute is to find out how come we have seen Clara is it? (look that's bad in itself that i don't even know her name) before in 2 different episodes.
Can anyone tell were the last 2 episode both Russel T Davis episodes?
As for the dumbing down or aiming at kids and teens is it me or has this just started to happen no the Yanks have started to love it?
I was watching it with friends who normally watch it with their kids. We were all a bit baffled: what was the point? What was the writer trying to say? The singing was pretty but the episode was cutesy and muddled.
I like Matt Smith but he's saddled with a tiresomely mannered character. Jenna is very winsome but she's overshadowed here by yet another overly-complicated mystery backstory and also by a space princess. Where we should have seen a relationship develop between the two leads, the opportunity was lost under a lot of sub-Star Wars magical nonsense.
I wish we were done with the occult and mysticism in popular culture for a bit.
Ironically, BBC America just aired a special about the Third Doctor plus his first appearance, "Spearhead from Space".
What a difference!
It made sense!
It had action!
It had a Doctor you BELIEVED was a benevolent (if somewhat crabby) 900+ year-old alien!
For the record, while my first Doctor was Tom Baker, my favorite is Pertwee.
Of the post-2005 crowd...
I liked Eccleston.
Tennant was uneven (and the whole "romance" with Rose Tyler was horribly trite and unbelievable) but his Doctor managed to "feel" like an extension of the earlier Doctors (especially in "School Reunion" with Elizabeth Sladen).
Matt Smith leaves me totally cold.
(Apparently regeneration destroys brain cells...)
It was sad
Solution to any problem-sonic screwdriver and then monologue like a madman.
Production values and effects were atrocious.
That factory where they always film alien market scenes is not being disguised enough.
The arena the spectators were sitting in on the asteroid/planet/rock must have been on a rotational device allowing the planet to rotate under them as they remained in place ....or am I missing something?
And every time I hear a welsh accent on another planet I cringe.
I could go on and on
But here is the truth,from a nine year old who was ready to accept anything.
Half way through-"this is a rubbish episode"
Heres something else to think about.
My sons asked me if I knew the happy camper song the people in the arena were singing.????????
And the saturnalian symbolism!...I dont have the time to go there.
Something positive then.
The slow motion effect on the three bodyguards was really nice.
I don't think the producers want to peak too early either so rather than compete with themselves....
I enjoyed last week's episode but this week's was atrocious. The first half was OK without being anything special but in the second half the whole thing seemed to crumble to dust.
Apparently the script was a rush job - and it showed.
Actually, the one good thing about the episode was the three sinister-looking aliens. Just goes to show how bad the rest of it was if they were pushed out of my mind when writing my post.
Apparently, at one time or other, DC Comics used to come up with interesting cover images - and then have writers craft a story around them. I get the impression that Steven Moffat decides which atmospheric images he's going to crib from different movies and TV shows, and then tries to tie them all together into a story somehow.
Got news for you, Mr Moffat - it doesn't work.
Thanks for all the interesting observations - keep 'em coming.
I did like the three aliens but couldn't help feeling they'd been stolen from some comic or other. It was driving me up the wall trying to work out which comic it was.
Steve
On the familiar aliens - it has been noted elsewhere on the web, and I tend to agree, that they are dead ringers for some of the 'steampunk cybermen' that artist Mike Mignola might have dreamt up for a Hellboy story, and may already have!
I agree that the last 2 episodes were dire. Last week I thought it had been written by a committee of 10 yr olds, this week I'm sure there were 6 yr olds involved in the writing. Eccleston for me got back a portion of the malevolent, wrathful side of the Dr & tennant/Smith have veered off course & the show now lacks real story-telling.
One thing's for sure - it definitely needs an overhaul before it gets any worse. When Tennant took over, a dark side was hinted at - as has been the case with Smith on occasion. Trouble is, they never followed it through.
With the decision cast 55 yr old Peter Capaldi, one can only hope he brings some much needed gravitas to the role. Better scripts will help obviously, but at the very least we should not be suffering the antics of Smith's present incarnation
Better scripts would indeed help, Tongalad, but apparently Moffat wrote some really difficult gobbledygook for Capaldi's audition, which doesn't bode well. That's the very thing the programme needs to get away from, not prepare for.
Post a Comment