Twitter tells me it's World Poetry Day - and so here is a poem I wrote in August 2012. Be lovely and comment or tweet thoughts to @trilbyauton, or just nod in appreciation behind your laptop screens. I'm imagining in you nodding in appreciation already.
FAMILY ALBUM
by JR Mortimer
Is this really necessary?
Am I really here?
Is the sky the black I expected?
Where are all those I hold dear?
Is this really right?
Can we make all the people cry?
Is the war the game I expected?
Is 'everything's ok' a lie?
Is this really important?
Can we do this to ourselves?
Do I get the pride that I expected?
Into the sand he delves.
Is this really ok?
Can I write this down with truth?
Maybe it's not meant to be
Maybe I want proof
Is this really it?
There must be more to come
I don't take things for granted
I just look what I've become
This mirror is just twisted
In my head it's just a mess
But my heart tells me who I am
I want to be no less
The helicopter's got to be landing
There has to be some escape
Clean the sand from your fingers
Don't show all this on tape
This isn't for the family album
It's not something to hold quite close
At least I'm getting home now.
And this is my last post.
ALSO COMING TODAY ON THIS BLOG: The revelation of the first Unbound Doctor
Thursday 21 March 2013
Sunday 17 March 2013
Doctor Who Unbound - Full Fathom Five Review
Even that didn't prepare me for this.
Full Fathom Five is one of those 'dark' Doctor Who stories. Which is good, I like those. I like ones which push the Doctor Who range a bit further, as you don't get that on TV (probably a good thing, you couldn't show this on TV). This story is not for children, basically. Don't sit your ten-year-old, Curse of the Black Spot-loving Doctor Who fan to listen to this. Because people will die violently, the Doctor will be horrible, and there is actual swearing. You have been warned.
And a quick note - I am gonna try and leave spoilers out of this review for once...
Let's discuss the story briefly. The main question for this Unbound (as they all pretty much go around a 'What if' scenario, and by the way if anyone ever wants to resurrect the range - get in touch, I have the most awesome ideas) is What if the Doctor believed the end justified the means? That's enough to get your minds thinking. Because normally, the Doctor's very much a man who wants to save everyone... But what if he thought the ultimate goal was more important than the steps along the way? Just this change within his character really pushes him and the story further. Basically, the Doctor is going to DEEP (why they didn't just say 'deep' and referred to D - E - E - P every time though I don't know) to find out the truth about what happened to Ruth's father, and clear his name. Ruth is almost his adopted daughter, who's false surname doesn't last very long at all, and DEEP is an underwater base where they're looking for alternative energy. So the set up is fairly standard Doctor Who. Except when they get to the DEEP - it becomes clear that the DEEP project wasn't that straightforward, and the Doctor's reasons for returning weren't that straightforward either. The mystery is slowly and cleverly revealed, as the tracks alternate between 27 years ago, and the present day. The change in time feels natural, and it's written brilliantly.
The Doctor, as I've said, is played by David Collings, otherwise known as Poul and Mawdryn. Oh and Silver, for Sapphire & Steel fans out there. I'm gonna review those one day too. Collings gives an incredible performance as this on-the-edge, dark, aggressive Doctor. I expected him to be quite trademark Collings, quite smooth and sophisticated. He's nothing like that, and nothing like a Doctor that's been on TV. It is very much his take on the role, and most of the time it felt like I was actually listening to the Doctor, not Collings playing the Doctor. That's how it should be. His performance and relationship with the other characters, as well as sharp personality changes and the occasional swear word, make him his own Doctor - and he is one of the best things about it.
Ruth is a stereotypical companion - which is fine, because in this story she serves a purpose. Her character is developed more by the story and by other characters, and so her dialogue doesn't really show any great change 'til the end. She is very much an 'asks questions' companion. She reminded me of the companion from The Curse of Fatal Death in a way. There to be significant, and a good character - but ultimately just asking a lot of questions. This, as I said, didn't bother me. Her character effectively creates the story, so she doesn't need to be as strong throughout because the story carries on because of her rather than with her, if that makes sense. The one time her character really changes is towards the end, when events spiral out of her control, and a quite emotional performance is given. I'm not sure if it's as emotional as it could be, perhaps it's a little too calm (especially considering her extreme reactions to some stuff earlier on), but it is a good performance at heart. Even if you don't like her, the story is too gripping to let that get to you. But I liked her. She felt real.
Other characters include General Flint, Lee, Hoskins and Vollmer. Hoskins is possibly the best supporting part, played with real authenticity. Flint is very good, even if he gets a bit stereotypical Doctor Who army man at times. Vollmer and Lee are also good, and Lee's purpose as a character gives the story an extra edge. It's nice to have a story where all the characters are there for a direct purpose, and they all have their own lives, their own motives, and their own importance. It is a character play - and this makes it all the more dramatic, dark and emotional.
Then comes the shocking stuff. I've told you about how good the cast and the story is - and the shocking stuff doesn't actually surprise me, it fits in with the tone. But SPOILERS NOW FOLLOW, so if you want to listen on the basis of what I've said - leave now before it's ruined.
The Doctor's dark performance really does shock at times. It fits in, as I said, well with the tone of the story and in a strange way seems unsurprising - but all the same. The Doctor is killing people. He is actually pulling a gun and shooting them, in cold blood. His murder of Lee (I told you there were spoilers from now on) comes quite unexpectedly. His cold "Wrong answer" when Lee goes back against his own 'end justifying the means' speech is shocking - and then just shoot him is almost vile. The Doctor is doing this - and from that point on, Collings' performance becomes stronger, and the Doctor turns into something we haven't heard before.
Yet there's something uncomfortable in how nice he is to Ruth, despite his history of killing people her father worked with. Despite the history of killing her father! That was the bit I knew was coming, but the Doctor using people felt strange and dark.
Even the story itself is grotesque, with experiments on babies and clones being manufactured into super soldiers. Flint's alien at the end is another stereotypical Who moment, but in a play that seems so un-Who, it challenges the listener when old school Who ideas are thrown in. There is a sense of reality. Vollmer's convulsions - things you'd never seen on TV, yet would happen. This story is very real, and that makes the Doctor's uncharacteristic performance seem real.
Oh and one other dark thing to talk about. The bit with the key, where Flint chokes or forces the Doctor to swallow it (it didn't seem too clear which one but I think it was the latter) was horrible. Yet, when Ruth says something along the lines of "You murdered my father, you bastard", you can't help but feel he deserves all he gets. All the same though - this is the Doctor... You have to feel sorry for him almost.
It's a play that challenges the listener, and this certainly won't be like any Doctor Who you have ever heard before. But ironically - it makes you ask that question even more. Because if the Doctor can kill people, if he degrades into a swearing, violent, aggressive, dark Doctor, who will kill and destroy secrets and lie, who will call a man 'expendable' - who is he?
Doctor Who, exactly?
An excellent play, emotionally and realistically written, with good performances and an interesting range of characters who all serve a purpose. I would give this 10/10 if it was a drama.
But at the end of the day, this is a Doctor Who story. And so it's so unlike Doctor Who I can't rate it. Sorry.
Seriously though - buy it. And if anyone has a copy of the script, I wouldn't mind doing this as an actual fan film one day, so um, get in touch?
Sunday 10 March 2013
Shada | A Review
I'd just like to say how confident I am about the following review. I honestly think it's going to be one of the best I've ever written. I'm writing it in my home town, and it's a wonderfully ambitious review, that naturally I'm writing last minute to an invisible deadline.
And I promise I won't be sarcastic about Shada at all. What do you mean what was that above? I don't know what you're talking about.
I guess, for all fans, Shada is the one you have to watch. It's the one you can't go through fandom avoiding. That and the Daleks' Master Plan, probably. And maybe The War Games. And Genesis of the Daleks... I'll stop there. But Shada is a necessary for all of us, and so sitting down to watch it today, the 10th March 2013, I felt that I was about to watch a piece of history. Well, a piece of history with linking narration from Tom Baker. Perhaps they should do that in history lessons. THIS IS THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS *cuts to Tom Baker* AND THEN HAROLD GOT SHOT IN THE EYE *cuts back to battle where Harold lies on the floor/grass*.
They could do that kinda thing. But anyway yeah, history. Shada. It has gained 'legendary' status because it was cancelled because of a strike, and it's something the fans have kinda always wanted to see completed. Apparently. I think that's probably more just to satisfy our fan curiosity, to see what it would have looked like all done. I'm not sure there's any great wish to see the story finished because we want to see the epic that probably wouldn't have been that epic Doctor/Skagra mind battle at the end. I might be wrong, though.
So anyway, the story itself. Part One is almost faultless. It was like watching City of Death, but in Cambridge. The lines were witty, Tom and Lalla are amazing, the Keeper of Traken (sorry, Professor Chronotis) was really quite good, and Chris wasn't too bad. But the episode was an absolute joy to watch. The other thing that was beneficial was that not too much was missing, and Tom Baker's narration was limited to a couple of lab scenes that were described well. So yeah. You should watch Shada purely for Part One people, it is wonderful.
Part Two is also wonderful. The Doctor gets some great lines (the No Cycling one is particularly surreal and brilliant), and Tom Baker is acting like he's back in his first season. Eccentric, marvellous, mad, brilliant, the best. Lalla Ward also gives a strong and confident performance. The chase around Cambridge with the Doctor on a bike and the ball mind stealing thing chasing him is great. The choir singing to it is great. Part Two is just wonderful.
And Part Three is where the missing scenes really start making a difference. The action in the Professor's college room becomes gradually less exciting through the remainder of the episode, and with only those scenes actually available to watch, apart from a few brief cut aways to Cambridge, which become more limited, the episode gets... almost boring. There isn't enough in the college room clips to keep your interest. And although the scenes Tom Baker narrates sound wonderful, you need to actually see them to really appreciate the episode. There are a couple of clever twists along the way, and the whole concepts of Shada and the ancient book really are quite good - but the college room seems don't work on their own. Even in the episode, though they would be accompanied by some scenes with good humour and action, I'm not sure there's enough in them. It's hard to tell how the episode would be balanced, because it feels too college heavy without the other clips ever being filmed.
To some extent, I guess the college room/TARDIS stuff feels a bit like you're a kid, playing Doctor Who and pretending your sofa is the control panel of your TARDIS. We've all done it - and it is in a way quite brilliant to see them actually doing it for real. But it is a little too limited for television.
So yeah. I imagine along with the other scenes, this would be a complete, funny, exciting episode of Doctor Who. The early parts certainly indicate this. But without all the clips it is really difficult to judge. And the college room clips aren't strong enough to carry the episode along with Mr Baker's narration. I found myself getting confused at which room was which and who was on what spaceship at certain points - could there not have been a CGI recreation of certain moments? Could there not have been a certain animation included, just to bring it to life a little?
Shada needs life. Currently it exists as an ailing Professor Chronotis, stumbling on, coming up with some good lines and good moments, but not quite all there. Imagine a young Chronotis, full of life. A hero. The best, to some. So imagine a complete Shada. Maybe not the best - but certainly very good.
I would comment on the documentary, but the doors appear to have been locked to Blogger, and there's talk of some kind of strike?
And I promise I won't be sarcastic about Shada at all. What do you mean what was that above? I don't know what you're talking about.
I guess, for all fans, Shada is the one you have to watch. It's the one you can't go through fandom avoiding. That and the Daleks' Master Plan, probably. And maybe The War Games. And Genesis of the Daleks... I'll stop there. But Shada is a necessary for all of us, and so sitting down to watch it today, the 10th March 2013, I felt that I was about to watch a piece of history. Well, a piece of history with linking narration from Tom Baker. Perhaps they should do that in history lessons. THIS IS THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS *cuts to Tom Baker* AND THEN HAROLD GOT SHOT IN THE EYE *cuts back to battle where Harold lies on the floor/grass*.
They could do that kinda thing. But anyway yeah, history. Shada. It has gained 'legendary' status because it was cancelled because of a strike, and it's something the fans have kinda always wanted to see completed. Apparently. I think that's probably more just to satisfy our fan curiosity, to see what it would have looked like all done. I'm not sure there's any great wish to see the story finished because we want to see the epic that probably wouldn't have been that epic Doctor/Skagra mind battle at the end. I might be wrong, though.
So anyway, the story itself. Part One is almost faultless. It was like watching City of Death, but in Cambridge. The lines were witty, Tom and Lalla are amazing, the Keeper of Traken (sorry, Professor Chronotis) was really quite good, and Chris wasn't too bad. But the episode was an absolute joy to watch. The other thing that was beneficial was that not too much was missing, and Tom Baker's narration was limited to a couple of lab scenes that were described well. So yeah. You should watch Shada purely for Part One people, it is wonderful.
Part Two is also wonderful. The Doctor gets some great lines (the No Cycling one is particularly surreal and brilliant), and Tom Baker is acting like he's back in his first season. Eccentric, marvellous, mad, brilliant, the best. Lalla Ward also gives a strong and confident performance. The chase around Cambridge with the Doctor on a bike and the ball mind stealing thing chasing him is great. The choir singing to it is great. Part Two is just wonderful.
And Part Three is where the missing scenes really start making a difference. The action in the Professor's college room becomes gradually less exciting through the remainder of the episode, and with only those scenes actually available to watch, apart from a few brief cut aways to Cambridge, which become more limited, the episode gets... almost boring. There isn't enough in the college room clips to keep your interest. And although the scenes Tom Baker narrates sound wonderful, you need to actually see them to really appreciate the episode. There are a couple of clever twists along the way, and the whole concepts of Shada and the ancient book really are quite good - but the college room seems don't work on their own. Even in the episode, though they would be accompanied by some scenes with good humour and action, I'm not sure there's enough in them. It's hard to tell how the episode would be balanced, because it feels too college heavy without the other clips ever being filmed.
To some extent, I guess the college room/TARDIS stuff feels a bit like you're a kid, playing Doctor Who and pretending your sofa is the control panel of your TARDIS. We've all done it - and it is in a way quite brilliant to see them actually doing it for real. But it is a little too limited for television.
So yeah. I imagine along with the other scenes, this would be a complete, funny, exciting episode of Doctor Who. The early parts certainly indicate this. But without all the clips it is really difficult to judge. And the college room clips aren't strong enough to carry the episode along with Mr Baker's narration. I found myself getting confused at which room was which and who was on what spaceship at certain points - could there not have been a CGI recreation of certain moments? Could there not have been a certain animation included, just to bring it to life a little?
Shada needs life. Currently it exists as an ailing Professor Chronotis, stumbling on, coming up with some good lines and good moments, but not quite all there. Imagine a young Chronotis, full of life. A hero. The best, to some. So imagine a complete Shada. Maybe not the best - but certainly very good.
I would comment on the documentary, but the doors appear to have been locked to Blogger, and there's talk of some kind of strike?
Thursday 7 March 2013
Is Survival the Best Doctor Who Episode Ever?
Survival. The last ever 'classic' Doctor Who episode, the last ever episode of continuous 26 year Doctor Who, the last ever episode featuring Sophie Aldred, featuring Sylvester McCoy (apart from a brief stint in 1996) and featuring Anthony Ainley as an actually relatively sane Master. And the last classic episode to feature cats. I rewatched Survival for the first time in a while the other week, and it struck me how good it actually was. It has the 'contemporary' feel to it, which I've always picked up, and almost seamlessly links into Rose from 2005. But that link isn't why I see it as one of the best episodes ever, there's a great deal of other reasons.
A CONTEMPORARY DRAMA
I think my main mantra for Doctor Who is "it's drama with aliens in it". I wouldn't consider the very early adventures part of a Science Fiction show at all. An Unearthly Child is definitely a drama with cavemen and a time machine. The whole thing is done with total realism. The other thing about An Unearthly Child is that it captures 1963 as 1963 should be captured. It's not trying to mirror it as Remembrance of the Daleks does, it's actually from that era. And so that's one of the reasons why Survival is so good. It captures 1989 because it's made in 1989. It's a drama, that's realistic. I wasn't even on this planet in 1989, yet I can see it captures the era, I can see how much of a drama Survival really is. It takes street kids, effectively a gang, and sticks them on a rather believable alien world. There's no cheap sci-fi gags like giving the Planet of the Cheetah People a name - it is just the Planet of the Cheetah People. Perfect. It doesn't try and be a science fiction show, it tries to be real, and I think it succeeds. Survival is a drama with another planet in. It still has those Doctor Who elements, but without being an over the top sci-fi drama.
SCIENCE FICTION ELEMENTS
I think some stories have the problem of trying to be too sci-fi, and for me that's where Doctor Who kinda trips up. I prefer a realistic, authentic drama about the Doctor and some aliens, rather than a full blown sci-fi adventure. That's what Star Trek is for. Survival manages to keep these sci-fi elements present, like trips to another planet, but minimal. I love sci-fi concepts being used and made real, and it's good that it's only used occasionally in the show. Things like time paradoxes and parallel worlds are good on occasion and are thankfully kept to a minimum. But Survival uses another, a symbiotic link between animals and planet - and this is a great idea. It's (to my knowledge) not used in Doctor Who before, or at least not a lot, and so it's a great sci-fi idea to use and make real.
SUBTEXT
I like Doctor Who when you can read a bit of subtext. Yes it's good when Doctor Who episodes are a lot of fun, etc (depends on your definition of fun though I guess), but it's nice just to have an extra layer there. Survival has that. Though not as... picked up on or even explicit as the subtext in The Curse of Fenric about everyone wanting to come into the water (*coughs*), it is still there. There are feminine symbols (moon, cat) to notice and I think there's talk of Karra and Ace having some kind of lesbian relationship floating about on the internet as well. But that subtext is there, however much is intentional.
EDUCATIONAL
One of the original purposes of Doctor Who was to be educational. It's kinda lost that. Thankfully I think, in most cases. Pure historical adventures/episodes are another interesting idea best used sparingly. But Survival, though not a historical or particularly educational, does have those elements in it. It's more that it just uses clever themes I think. One such theme is the whole 'survival of the fittest' thing. It's just a theme that's picked up, but it's good that it's threaded throughout the script. It shows consistency, and it's good when Doctor Who can reference other ideas, concepts, theories or themes.
THE END OF AN ERA
This probably isn't one of the things I like about Survival, but certainly it gives certain things more emphasis and importance. It being the last episode, it's good to see the Doctor and Master FINALLY having a fist fight, in one of the more dramatic fights Doctor Who's done. It's also good to see the Doctor having properly good speeches, with the 'animals' shout at the end of his fight, and his departing speech about the tea getting cold. It is properly good, properly well written drama, and things were certainly being resolved. But not too resolved. That's how Doctor Who works.
CRITICISMS & CONCLUSION
I suppose on the logic of Survival being a contemporary drama, you could argue something like Rose would be the best episode ever. Or you could argue Talons of Weng-Chiang because it captures the Victorian era so well and authentically. Or The Deadly Assassin because it gives a believable portrayal of an alien world. For me, The Deadly Assassin is only as good as it is because of the scenes in the Matrix. And yes other stories do capture time periods really well, but Survival has something strange in it's favour. It's short. The story is perfectly fitted to the number of parts in the episode, and it goes along at a good pace, something Talons possibly slips up on a couple of times. You could also argue that Spearhead From Space captures a contemporary time well and.. actually yeah it does.
But it my eyes, Survival is one of the best Doctor Who episodes. It's not the most conventional Doctor Who story, and when stood up against classics like 'Tomb of the Cybermen' some may say they can't compare. After all, Survival only came (an actually quite respectable) 80th place in the top 200 episodes survey DWM did. Tomb came 25th. But some will probably think that this post, about subtext and eduction and clever themes and deep meanings, is a reason why not to like Survival. They may feel stuff like that isn't needed in Doctor Who. And it isn't needed - but in my eyes it's nice if it's there. It does ultimately come down to personal preference, and so to ask whether or not Survival is the best episode ever is a bit of a strange question perhaps. But for me, it contains the things I enjoy in a Doctor Who episode, it has good characterisation, and it's a good story. It has other layers for people to notice, and it keeps the spirit of the programme at heart. So it may not be a classic or a conventional favourite, but it is a favourite of a different kind.
And on the note of personal preference, it's worth saying my favourite episode will always be Spearhead From Space. That's realistic, well written, with good characterisation and the story is sustained for the right amount of time. But when looking for an unconventional Doctor Who to pick as a favourite, something a bit different - then Survival could just be the one.
So it is the best Doctor Who episode that tries to do something different, that tries to expand, while still keeping the heart of the programme alive.
Now come on Ace, we've got work to do.
A CONTEMPORARY DRAMA
I think my main mantra for Doctor Who is "it's drama with aliens in it". I wouldn't consider the very early adventures part of a Science Fiction show at all. An Unearthly Child is definitely a drama with cavemen and a time machine. The whole thing is done with total realism. The other thing about An Unearthly Child is that it captures 1963 as 1963 should be captured. It's not trying to mirror it as Remembrance of the Daleks does, it's actually from that era. And so that's one of the reasons why Survival is so good. It captures 1989 because it's made in 1989. It's a drama, that's realistic. I wasn't even on this planet in 1989, yet I can see it captures the era, I can see how much of a drama Survival really is. It takes street kids, effectively a gang, and sticks them on a rather believable alien world. There's no cheap sci-fi gags like giving the Planet of the Cheetah People a name - it is just the Planet of the Cheetah People. Perfect. It doesn't try and be a science fiction show, it tries to be real, and I think it succeeds. Survival is a drama with another planet in. It still has those Doctor Who elements, but without being an over the top sci-fi drama.
SCIENCE FICTION ELEMENTS
I think some stories have the problem of trying to be too sci-fi, and for me that's where Doctor Who kinda trips up. I prefer a realistic, authentic drama about the Doctor and some aliens, rather than a full blown sci-fi adventure. That's what Star Trek is for. Survival manages to keep these sci-fi elements present, like trips to another planet, but minimal. I love sci-fi concepts being used and made real, and it's good that it's only used occasionally in the show. Things like time paradoxes and parallel worlds are good on occasion and are thankfully kept to a minimum. But Survival uses another, a symbiotic link between animals and planet - and this is a great idea. It's (to my knowledge) not used in Doctor Who before, or at least not a lot, and so it's a great sci-fi idea to use and make real.
SUBTEXT
I like Doctor Who when you can read a bit of subtext. Yes it's good when Doctor Who episodes are a lot of fun, etc (depends on your definition of fun though I guess), but it's nice just to have an extra layer there. Survival has that. Though not as... picked up on or even explicit as the subtext in The Curse of Fenric about everyone wanting to come into the water (*coughs*), it is still there. There are feminine symbols (moon, cat) to notice and I think there's talk of Karra and Ace having some kind of lesbian relationship floating about on the internet as well. But that subtext is there, however much is intentional.
EDUCATIONAL
One of the original purposes of Doctor Who was to be educational. It's kinda lost that. Thankfully I think, in most cases. Pure historical adventures/episodes are another interesting idea best used sparingly. But Survival, though not a historical or particularly educational, does have those elements in it. It's more that it just uses clever themes I think. One such theme is the whole 'survival of the fittest' thing. It's just a theme that's picked up, but it's good that it's threaded throughout the script. It shows consistency, and it's good when Doctor Who can reference other ideas, concepts, theories or themes.
THE END OF AN ERA
This probably isn't one of the things I like about Survival, but certainly it gives certain things more emphasis and importance. It being the last episode, it's good to see the Doctor and Master FINALLY having a fist fight, in one of the more dramatic fights Doctor Who's done. It's also good to see the Doctor having properly good speeches, with the 'animals' shout at the end of his fight, and his departing speech about the tea getting cold. It is properly good, properly well written drama, and things were certainly being resolved. But not too resolved. That's how Doctor Who works.
CRITICISMS & CONCLUSION
I suppose on the logic of Survival being a contemporary drama, you could argue something like Rose would be the best episode ever. Or you could argue Talons of Weng-Chiang because it captures the Victorian era so well and authentically. Or The Deadly Assassin because it gives a believable portrayal of an alien world. For me, The Deadly Assassin is only as good as it is because of the scenes in the Matrix. And yes other stories do capture time periods really well, but Survival has something strange in it's favour. It's short. The story is perfectly fitted to the number of parts in the episode, and it goes along at a good pace, something Talons possibly slips up on a couple of times. You could also argue that Spearhead From Space captures a contemporary time well and.. actually yeah it does.
But it my eyes, Survival is one of the best Doctor Who episodes. It's not the most conventional Doctor Who story, and when stood up against classics like 'Tomb of the Cybermen' some may say they can't compare. After all, Survival only came (an actually quite respectable) 80th place in the top 200 episodes survey DWM did. Tomb came 25th. But some will probably think that this post, about subtext and eduction and clever themes and deep meanings, is a reason why not to like Survival. They may feel stuff like that isn't needed in Doctor Who. And it isn't needed - but in my eyes it's nice if it's there. It does ultimately come down to personal preference, and so to ask whether or not Survival is the best episode ever is a bit of a strange question perhaps. But for me, it contains the things I enjoy in a Doctor Who episode, it has good characterisation, and it's a good story. It has other layers for people to notice, and it keeps the spirit of the programme at heart. So it may not be a classic or a conventional favourite, but it is a favourite of a different kind.
And on the note of personal preference, it's worth saying my favourite episode will always be Spearhead From Space. That's realistic, well written, with good characterisation and the story is sustained for the right amount of time. But when looking for an unconventional Doctor Who to pick as a favourite, something a bit different - then Survival could just be the one.
So it is the best Doctor Who episode that tries to do something different, that tries to expand, while still keeping the heart of the programme alive.
Now come on Ace, we've got work to do.
Saturday 2 March 2013
A Few Thoughts on Plot Holes
Plot holes and Doctor Who. It's the things Doctor Who fans argue about endlessly. You get people who accept the story as "romantic" and make the plot holes part of the story (like the DWM review of 'The Angels Take Manhattan'), you get some who moan endlessly about the plot holes but can try and understand them, and then you get those who just look for plot holes without even thinking something may not actually be a plot hole. Doctor Who has got more plot holes in it now, yes, but they're not always there.
I mean to take a look at a few existing ones. Or "unresolved issues" as we'll call them. Rory getting zapped at the end of The Impossible Astronaut is one. He just seems to have recovered in the flashback in Day of the Moon (to be fair, I love these episodes and that's my only problem as far as I can remember). Then there's The Angels Take Manhattan. There are so many plot holes in it, and I can't remember them all - but the main one is summed up in the words - The Statue of Liberty. Cos it's hollow, metal, there are thousands of images of it etc... And then there's Amy and Rory being trapped. Why can't the Doctor hop on a plane to New York? Use River's Vortex Manipulator? She can see them after all. What happened to Rory's dad? (The 'PS' Epilogue doesn't really count as a solution if it's off screen... Be a bit like assuming Ace died and became a Dalek hunter all at once.) Then there's what happened to Amy's parents? And how can Amelia still smile in the garden when she hears the TARDIS if the Doctor moved her indoors in The Big Bang? Lots of plot holes or "unresolved issues", but we, as fans, accept them as part of the programme once we've had a good moan. After all, you can't get too picky... otherwise everyone would be moaning about the whole Pull To Open thing on the TARDIS, then moaning more when they do pull the doors to open!
And so this leads me onto those who don't accept plot holes and see ones that aren't there. I think my mum is probably one of those people, and often I'm explaining that such and such isn't a plot hole cos of things that happened in the last two series or something. I'm not innocent though. I didn't shut up about the Angels Take Manhattan plot holes for days after the episode had aired. But I accept them now, and use them when I need a good moan about my favourite TV show (we all do sometimes). But I can see the potential of the episode, and the brilliance of Matt Smith and the intelligence of Steven Moffat (intelligence when there aren't plot holes anyway). And often these, and my ultimate love for the TV show, beat the plot holes.
But of course that can't happen for everyone. With the announcement of the 1st March of The Bells of St John (are people gonna argue about St/Saint one day?)/new promo picture/look of Ice Warriors/Spoonheads/Richard E Grant return/teasers for the rest of the series, Moffat said that the Doctor's greatest secret would be revealed.
I'll be honest I'm angry at this, and hoping that "Doctor Who" is never answered. Because that's clearly his secret... Cos some are seeing this is a plot hole, and that's what I don't get. Even if people don't enjoy the series, then surely they can't miss the whole Doctor Who, oh it's a big secret, thing they've been plugging for ages. So Doctor Who must clearly be the secret... And so that isn't a plot hole. And this comes back to my point - revealing who the Doctor is is a bad idea, but it isn't a plot hole. There are plenty of others ways of noticing faults in the programme without just assuming things are plot holes because you expect them to be there.
And even if it isn't Doctor Who that's the secret - it isn't a plot hole because it's just a teaser. Teasers are just that, they tease us, and so if the Doctor has a great secret, that will be explained further. It isn't a plot hole.
And so my message. Yes there are plot holes. Yes they're good to moan about. Yes it would be boring to explain them on screen, so yes they are always going to be there. But - they're not everywhere...
I mean to take a look at a few existing ones. Or "unresolved issues" as we'll call them. Rory getting zapped at the end of The Impossible Astronaut is one. He just seems to have recovered in the flashback in Day of the Moon (to be fair, I love these episodes and that's my only problem as far as I can remember). Then there's The Angels Take Manhattan. There are so many plot holes in it, and I can't remember them all - but the main one is summed up in the words - The Statue of Liberty. Cos it's hollow, metal, there are thousands of images of it etc... And then there's Amy and Rory being trapped. Why can't the Doctor hop on a plane to New York? Use River's Vortex Manipulator? She can see them after all. What happened to Rory's dad? (The 'PS' Epilogue doesn't really count as a solution if it's off screen... Be a bit like assuming Ace died and became a Dalek hunter all at once.) Then there's what happened to Amy's parents? And how can Amelia still smile in the garden when she hears the TARDIS if the Doctor moved her indoors in The Big Bang? Lots of plot holes or "unresolved issues", but we, as fans, accept them as part of the programme once we've had a good moan. After all, you can't get too picky... otherwise everyone would be moaning about the whole Pull To Open thing on the TARDIS, then moaning more when they do pull the doors to open!
And so this leads me onto those who don't accept plot holes and see ones that aren't there. I think my mum is probably one of those people, and often I'm explaining that such and such isn't a plot hole cos of things that happened in the last two series or something. I'm not innocent though. I didn't shut up about the Angels Take Manhattan plot holes for days after the episode had aired. But I accept them now, and use them when I need a good moan about my favourite TV show (we all do sometimes). But I can see the potential of the episode, and the brilliance of Matt Smith and the intelligence of Steven Moffat (intelligence when there aren't plot holes anyway). And often these, and my ultimate love for the TV show, beat the plot holes.
But of course that can't happen for everyone. With the announcement of the 1st March of The Bells of St John (are people gonna argue about St/Saint one day?)/new promo picture/look of Ice Warriors/Spoonheads/Richard E Grant return/teasers for the rest of the series, Moffat said that the Doctor's greatest secret would be revealed.
I'll be honest I'm angry at this, and hoping that "Doctor Who" is never answered. Because that's clearly his secret... Cos some are seeing this is a plot hole, and that's what I don't get. Even if people don't enjoy the series, then surely they can't miss the whole Doctor Who, oh it's a big secret, thing they've been plugging for ages. So Doctor Who must clearly be the secret... And so that isn't a plot hole. And this comes back to my point - revealing who the Doctor is is a bad idea, but it isn't a plot hole. There are plenty of others ways of noticing faults in the programme without just assuming things are plot holes because you expect them to be there.
And even if it isn't Doctor Who that's the secret - it isn't a plot hole because it's just a teaser. Teasers are just that, they tease us, and so if the Doctor has a great secret, that will be explained further. It isn't a plot hole.
And so my message. Yes there are plot holes. Yes they're good to moan about. Yes it would be boring to explain them on screen, so yes they are always going to be there. But - they're not everywhere...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)