|
Practical Demon posted:I would be as well, if the details felt like they added to the setting rather than detracting from it. There are a lot of disparate elements in this episode and in a lot of others that don't quite feel like they add up to a whole. A side detail about industrial clone warfare doesn't at all seem to belong in a, if we're being generous, psychological horror episode with a found footage framework. Tonally, it feels like it's from a completely different episode, and adds nothing thematically or narratively. And it happens a lot. Industrial clone warfare doesn't belong in a psychological horror episode about zaibatsu turning their employees into unsleeping worker drones?
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Industrial clone warfare doesn't belong in a psychological horror episode about zaibatsu turning their employees into unsleeping worker drones? That's not what the episode is about. It's about viral videos and eye booger monsters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
Hmm, no, that is what the episode is about. The aliens are specifically the result of someone trying to compress a month's worth of sleep into five minutes so people can be more productive economic machines for their employers. I don't think it's any good but I also don't see the point in telling lies about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
I disagree. That aspect has almost no bearing on the story. It's basically an extraneous detail. It would be way better, though, if Blasmeister posted:the episode was about the social/moral/political implications of being able to remove the need for sleep instead of the dust monsters. And More fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
I think that's a little reductive. It's a major plot point and the reveal of the gimmick revolves around how the one guy who never uses sleep machines is the one guy who we never get a PoV-camera shot from. The problem is the metaphor as a whole goes some weird places. If the Sandmen are the result of corporations erasing humans out of greed, then the Sandmen are this unrestrained capitalism made physical, right? And since the episode is all shot by the Sandmen, for (the purpose of propagating) Sandmen, then... Doctor Who is the capitalism? We the audience are capitalism now? By watching this show we dehumanise the characters? Don't watch this show? No wonder the ending feels unsatisfying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Don't watch this show?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
A good episode.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:Just review the original show
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:Just review the original show They had some pretty good rubber suit monsters for a tv show. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:They had some pretty good rubber suit monsters for a tv show. Monsters who write good episodes in their free time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I think that's a little reductive. It's a major plot point and the reveal of the gimmick revolves around how the one guy who never uses sleep machines is the one guy who we never get a PoV-camera shot from. The problem is nothing is ever really said about the sleep compression and clone warfare. This is a preachy show, and the Doctor goes on a long rant moralizing at people through time almost every episode. Also, this Doctor is characterised as hating soldiers, or was, at one point. But he never gives a speech about how they've brought this horror on themselves and how their bodies are turning on them, etc. It's just treated as an excuse to get to eye booger monsters and kind of dropped there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
I really hate "found footage" episodes. Something about them forces me to think about the artifice of filming so much that minor details which wouldn't bother me otherwise start to irk me. They're asking for you to believe that the footage isn't constructed for presentation, so any time that it seems as though it is, it grates, and because my attention is constantly on it, I find myself hyper-critical of the cinematography. Also, the story for this one stunk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Found footage often just results in absolutely terrible direction and that's the case with Sleep No More. Even beyond all of the other problems in the show, it looked awful. It was lit badly; not dimly, actually badly where the the choices of lighting made everything look flat and cheap. The choice of shots was lazy, taking the obvious, simple viewpoints. And it was edited in a way to just make it feel even more boring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
They're almost at the bird episode! Did genesis win the poll? Dr. Gene Dango MD fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:Found footage often just results in absolutely terrible direction and that's the case with Sleep No More. Even beyond all of the other problems in the show, it looked awful. It was lit badly; not dimly, actually badly where the the choices of lighting made everything look flat and cheap. The choice of shots was lazy, taking the obvious, simple viewpoints. And it was edited in a way to just make it feel even more boring. I can think of one viewpoint that wasn't immediately obvious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Thing I'm not watching: Hamilton Thing I am watching: An...episode of DW, again, for review the sacrifices I make for this thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
oh look, it's that one guy who used to review doctor who
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:oh look, it's that one guy who used to review doctor who soothing vapors i need you to take that hole which you shove pie into and SHUT IT
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
b... but how will I eat pie? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
There are other holes
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Jesus... imagine watching Sleep No More twice
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
2house2fly posted:Jesus... imagine watching Sleep No More twice We're not monsters. No one ever has to do that. The editors clearly didn't. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
God dammit I've missed TWO ENTIRE MONTHS of reviews what the gently caress Toxx this is your fault and not mine
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
I can't remember the last time I put pie in my hole
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
You know this is the only Moffathelmed episode I never bothered to watch
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
DeafNote posted:You know this is the only Moffathelmed episode I never bothered to watch Pity, you missed a good episode.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Thing I'm not watching: Hamilton I mean, did you have the chance to see Hamilton? Because if so, and you're doing this instead, you make even worse life choices than this thread previously indicated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Doctor Who "Sleep No More" Series 9, Episode 9 "Sleep No More" is not a good episode of Doctor Who. That statement is so obvious that I won't even spend the time reading off the typical laundry list of reasons why it's bad: it doesn't commit to the found footage premise. Its cast is totally disposable. Its antagonists are ludicrous even by DW's exaggerated standards. There's a ton of cruft on the edges. Because of that cruft (which runs the gamut from extraneous characters to scenes to entire plotlines) the hour feels weirdly overstuffed even as it's simultaneously a complete bore. The editing is poor. The camera direction, even with the caveat framing narrative of being a "found footage" episode of Who, is especially bad. And finally, the plot goes so completely to pot that by the end of the story The Doctor himself makes specific note, shouting "None of this makes any sense!" before literally teleporting out of the story. Reflecting on it more, if I could talk to any one writer about any one episode he (or she, but almost always he) wrote, well it'd be Moffat about "The Eleventh Hour". It'd mostly consist of me ill-disguisedly gushing about how great "Eleventh Hour" is as a piece of writing, however. If it were a Serious Conversation, not just an excuse to geek out and fanboy, I'd probably end up choosing Gatiss and talking to him about "Sleep No More". "Sleep No More" fails, but it fails in a very un-Gatiss way - its reach far exceeds its grasp. Gatiss is (in)famous for writing workhorse, boilerplate hours of Who. If there's one word I'd use to describe the typical Mark Gatiss story, it'd be "safe". His output is safe. It's reliable. It's dependable. A Gatiss hour can practically be plotted out unseen: Big Bad Thing threatens people, The Doctor and his Companion arrive on the scene, Doctor and Companion run away from Big Bad Thing while shouting, Doctor eventually beats Big Bad Thing, usually via some sort of monologue. That's the Gatiss episode. One could counter that that's the general plot of every Who episode, but that's more the point. Like it or not, Gatiss is the average, the baseline, the standard for DW. And, as I've mentioned before in defense of the man, that's Gatiss' appeal. As Oxxidation once famously said, "He's unlikely to blow your mind but he won't turn your stomach". He's a force of reliability on a show that has unreliability coded into its very DNA, with everyone from writers to major actors to main actors to showrunners changing around every couple of years at most. Gatiss is one of if not the most prolific writer-writers (as opposed to showrunner-writers) of the show, and it's obvious why. He found a system of storytelling that works for him. As the old cliche goes, it ain't broke, so Gatiss doesn't bother trying to fix it. Until now, until "Sleep No More". "Sleep" is very bad, empirically speaking. But it's also very interesting. Much more interesting when one looks at the "Written By:" byline and sees Gatiss' name. Was Gatiss trying to push back against his detractors or something? Because he went from typical run-shout hours of Who with simple enemies and simpler stories to an incredibly high-concept Doctor Who tale in both conception and ostensible execution. Gatiss doesn't write episodes like this. His scripts have a bespoke, honest, homely feel to them. It's a very "What You See Is What You Get" approach to imparting narrative, no real gimmicks or anything. So even the most surface-level summation of "Sleep" is totally out of Gatiss' wheelhouse; "the found footage story" is not something you'd ever expect Gatiss to write. Leave that to someone like Moffat, who never met a shift in approach he didn't like. I really like found footage movies. Of course, I love horror in general, but as any true horror fan will tell you horror movies are generally really terrible. So it's within that genre that the subgenre of found footage thrives, because expectations are inherently lower. The "buy in" is also much lower in horror, because when you're dealing with killer dream pedophiles and killer undying hockey men with mommy issues, the idea that someone recorded weird poo poo on a handheld camera that was then mysteriously discovered by someone else who decided to cut it together into something resembling a narrative makes sense. The found footage genre also allows for horror to dodge its worst excesses or at least justify them. Horror's predilection for awkward expository dialog during moments of crisis makes sense, because suddenly there's a reason in-fiction for it to exist. The hackneyed explanations are meant to be recorded for posterity, giving them reason for being. The paper-thin characterizations usually prevalent in most other films in the horror genre can be and often are deepened in found footage; there's usually slice-of-life moments intercut before or between the moments of tension. The camera, the window the audience has to the story, itself becomes another character. The way the camera is held, the steadiness of the shot, what the operator decides to focus on, the zooms and pans they use. All of these little adjustments are able to give the audience more information about the personality of the cinematographer, without having anyone say it via dialog. Essentially, found footage allows for very powerful ambient storytelling. But Gatiss doesn't do any of that. I don't know how much if any direction he had over the cinematographer/director, but I assume stage directions were written into the script (especially for something like "Sleep", where perspective plays such a key role due to its gimmick). It's almost more damning if they weren't, because then it's Gatiss critically misunderstanding the strengths of the format he elected to use. In either case, the point is moot. "Sleep" never, ever feels like a found footage episode; it feels like a normal hour of Who with exceptionally bad and uncomfortably close camera angles. The shots are too steady, and the framing narrative of Rassmussen (Reece Shearsmith) awkwardly cutting together the story from recordings left behind means that his character interrupts most scenes in bad, overly-expositional voiceover to explain something either unnecessary or obvious to the viewer. Essentially, it's the worst of both worlds: the format shift doesn't materially affect how the story's message is conveyed beyond negatively. The best found footage tales feel like the viewing audience hijacks the characters' perspectives; "Sleep No More" feels like a bunch of cameras were placed on everyone's shoulders, not behind their eye sockets. If that makes sense. Then there's the specifics of the story in and of itself. It's, as I mentioned before, absolutely overstuffed with characters and ideas and whole plotlines of other, potentially better episodes of DW. 474's (Bethany Black) placement within the narrative makes no logical sense whatsoever. It's like Gatiss wanted to include a whole subplot about the intolerant society in which 474 lives that allowed her creation in the first place, thereby foreshadowing via backstory the truly malignant nature of Morpheus, but ran out of time. As it stands, she ends up an embarrassing footnote, the first ever trans actress the show had forced to play, essentially, "a strong retard". It's not a good look. On top of that, the intimations of more interesting worldbuilding, whether it be the commodification of sleep with Morpheus or the implication of how the Dustmen form (from an electronic signal), are not satisfactorily followed up on at all. Yes, let's discuss the Sandmen. The most befuddling storytelling decision Gatiss made, they're simultaneously very silly (living eye gunk, oh no) and frustratingly vague. Their origins and methods of propagation change at least three times during the runtime of "Sleep" proper. First they're living eye gunk, then they're living eye gunk created due to Rassmussen's sleep pod eliminating/shortening sleep so humans' disposed skin cells inexplicably become sentient. Finally, it's revealed that The Sandmen actually can multiply from any electronic signal broadcast as long as it is visual, thereby setting up the twist ending. There's so much time in-episode spent on explaining or correcting previous, incorrect, explanations for what The Sandmen are that by the end of it, the audience has even less of a grasp on The Sandmen then when they started. They're blind, except for the fact that they can see on all the dust particles, so they're not really blind? I guess? I guess they're unkillable too, I think, since the dust that makes up their bodies can willingly collapse and reform to any shape they choose. And, they're both barely-sentient golems and a highly sophisticated intelligence capable of the most devious of manipulation, as the Rassmussen ending reveal demonstrates. There's no clear bounds to or restrictions on their power. Gatiss doesn't write antagonists like this. His villains are plain, just like his scripts, with clear and obvious motivations and abilities built to within the episode proper. The Sandmen, in contrast, are attention deficit nonsense, everything and nothing simultaneously. This problem is compounded even worse in an abysmal scene midway through "Sleep" where The Doctor badly soliloquizes on the essentiality of sleep. Really, dude? On top of being a weird, ill-defined enemy you decided to make them bad symbolism? You weren't content just making them confusingly vague, you had to throw in a totally unearned moment of introspection to make them appear deep? The, again, sleep gunk monsters. C'mon Gatiss, you're better than this. (As an aside, I think "Sleep" puts the final nail in the coffin for the really stupid "Unquiet Dead is secretly xenophobic" argument from Series One. Firstly, all of Gatiss' subsequent output shows that he doesn't really go for antagonists-as-symbolism, and when he does like in here it's obvious to anyone with a pulse. Gatiss is many things, but subtle is not one of them and any interpretation of "Unquiet" as xenophobia requires Gatiss be capable of far more subtlety - what's more, malicious subtlety - then he, quite frankly, has. A backhanded defense, to be sure, but Gatiss just ain't good enough to pull it off.) And then we get to the ending, which was so nonsensical I literally dropped my jaw and asked aloud, "That's it?" The final minute or so of "Sleep" - the TARDIS escape as a confused Doctor yells "None of this makes any sense!" to Rassmussen revealing that everything we just saw was a prestige to the final twist-within-a-twist reveal that Rassmussen was himself a Sandman, with the "chilling" final line of "You've got something...There...Just in the corner of your eye." as he breaks the fourth wall...it might, literally, be the most absolutely insane thing I've seen on any television show ever. And I watched LOST, so that's saying something. Not earned, not built to, not justified by any of the preceding events before it, everything including and after The Doctor's escape is simultaneously some of the worst and most perversely enthralling television I've laid witness to. It's so many bizarre tone shifts, and such an absolute torrent of information and exposition in such a short amount of time that it leaves any viewer feeling mildly concussed by the time the "Next Time On..." previews roll. I timed it out - from episode resolution to its end, is two minutes. Within those two minutes, Rassmussen reveals: 1) The real plot of the episode; 2) Not one, but two separate plot twists (including a nested one); 3) A cliffhanger ending so inadequate I was certain this was secretly part one of a two-parter. When Oxx confirmed that, in fact, no it wasn't, it blew my mind. I mean, think of how absolutely nuts the ending of "Sleep No More" is. It's some guy cutting his way into the story, breaking the fourth wall only to tell the audience that everything they knew was wrong before evilly chuckling into the credits roll. That LITERALLY HAPPENED. It's awful stuff, on any empirical level, but on some guilt-inducing level it's fascinating. Which brings me back to my original point. I want to talk to Mark Gatiss about "Sleep No More", because on every single level this is anti-Gatiss screenwriting. He's consistently consistent, a solid mid-tier pick for lead writer. "Sleep" is an inconsistent mess of themes, ideas, and framing narratives with an absolutely bonkers ending, the exact opposite of what the audience is conditioned to seeing from him. I mean, this guy wrote on Series One. He's written for Who for over a decade. Probably more counting whatever books or audio stories or whatever he's written. And yet, he busts this story out, apropros of nothing, when he's firmly entrenched within the Who system. The question of "Why?" is what attracts me to this story. Like it or not, any written work reflects the author. I felt like I "knew" Gatiss from his decade-plus of Who stories, and he totally surprised me, on a fundamental level. So with something so far afield of his comfort zone, it leads me to desperately want to question what Gatiss' original intentions for "Sleep" were. Here's the thing. There's actually a layer to "Sleep" that makes me sort of love it - the metanarrative one. Gatiss crafted a really interesting story that doesn't exist on the page, or in the episode at all. The story about the story that Rassmussen was trying to tell us. There's a lot of my complaints that get cleared up, or at least excused, when it's revealed that Rassmussen carefully crafted the whole thing maliciously. The irony is that the ending makes the found footage episode NOT a found footage episode - it's another trick from Rassmussen, another lie to mislead. The altogether too-stable and lifeless shots that make up the hour's direction suddenly make sense, because it's Rassmussen cherry picking whatever angle whatever speck of dust closest to the person the story's supposed to be inhabiting has. The passive feel is intentional over accidental now, because you're not seeing what the characters see but what Rassmussen thinks the characters saw at that moment. It's a tiny distinction, as small as, well, a grain of sand, but it's a huge one. Rassmussen isn't an actor in this , he's the director of it. And a bad one. Suddenly, the disjointed storytelling, the random asides, the weird exposition, all of it makes sense. Just like how we're constantly supposed to second-guess and question the badness of the cinematography, the editing and narrative ambiguity is now validated. Rassmussen is a terrible storyteller, and it illustrates in the story that he tells, one packed to the gills with cruft and both over- and under-explained plot hooks. And like the very worst storytellers, he ends up excitedly interrupting the ostensible end, throwing out a ton of plot twists and, essentially, chortling about how much of a genius he is. Bathing in his own perceived genius, literally gleefully telling the audience how much more brilliant than them he is. "None of this makes any sense!", The Doctor yells. But it's not a tacit admission from Gatiss that he's completely lost the thread of his own writing, it's meant to foreshadow the ultimate reveal that Rassmussen engineered the whole thing - and he did it so badly that The Doctor started putting it together as he was resolving it. I think that's what Gatiss was going for, I guess. To be honest, this was the only way a found footage episode of DW could work - the specific perspective, both literal and figurative, of found footage is almost completely incompatible with DW. Found footage is small storytelling - watch The Blair Witch Project again (seriously, it's still great). The titular Blair Witch doesn't even show up in the film itself - the most scary, violent, horrifying thing the audience ever sees is some lady standing in a corner, back turned away from the camera. That's not how DW shows its monsters - they're big and scary, they monopolize screentime by looking as menacing as possible. The idea of a monsterless monster episode is verboten, part of what makes "Midnight" so notable. Found footage is boring, too. Again, Blair Witch. The first half of the movie is villager interviews. Paranormal Activity has a good half-to-three-quarters of its runtime have NOTHING happening onscreen. The audience watches people sleep. The only real exception I can think of is [REC], and even then it takes a bit of a while to ramp up from "scared Spanish villagers sealed in a house" to "zombies". Found footage stresses the mundanity and intentionally juxtaposes it with moments of occasional, ever-increasing tension, which "Sleep No More" can't do because it's a forty-five minute publicly accessible British TV show. The demographics at play here demand more action than a slow-paced creepfest that the genre sort of demands. Basically, in my own head, Gatiss was handed an impossible task - "write a found footage episode of DW" and ended up resolving it in the only interesting way. Not a good way, I have to stress. But interesting. It makes me think, which none of the previous eight episodes I watched can claim. Perhaps Gatiss was striking back at his detractors, the ones who claim he writes mediocre fluff, since this seems at times pointedly and specifically the opposite of his firmly established writing style. And I do wonder if Gatiss, perhaps, realized that there's no way that the production side of Who could ever do a found footage episode justice. Because it just couldn't, everything I've seen from the show's direction, picture quality, cinematography, shot direction (aka all the technical aspects of Who) feels in that weird middle ground of not good enough to pass for even American cable drama, but not specifically bad enough so they're using handheld cameras and GoPros while recording so the found footage is believably poor. Essentially, the filmmaking uncanny valley. Gatiss, recognizing that, steered into the skid and made the found footage episode specifically not one, and made the weaknesses of Who's technical production intentional within the narrative. Yes, the "It's intentionally bad" defense. Of course, this is all conjecture. In my head. Which is why I want to talk to Gatiss about this episode over talking to any other writer about any other episode, because "Sleep No More" is either a brilliant intentionally-bad episode of Who from a writer fed up with being perceived as strictly mediocre and samey, or it's Gatiss sincerely trying to write a decent episode of Who that's totally afield from his wheelhouse and failing on literally every possible level. Hell, maybe it's both. Either way though, intentionally bad or not, it doesn't take away the fact that "Sleep No More" is some truly wretched programming. Grade: D Random Thoughts:
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
I don't disagree. I don't know if Gatiss set out to write it as such or if it was an accidental script of circumstance. It's not great no matter the reason or intent. I admire what it tried even if it failed in all the metrics one could levy against it. You really like to rely on terms like "objectively" and "empirical" for you reviews, though, and that bothers me more than the episode.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
I think this is supposed to be Gatiss writing a "Midnight" plot, and failing. Which is funny because that was in itself an obvious attempt to write a Blink that didn't quite hit the mark. As a fan of Midnight, at least I can finally say it's no longer the worst One-Of-Those. I hope what Gatiss is going for is for you to see the monsters, which are loving silly, and say "this is a goddamn stupid episode of Who." And then the fourth wall is broken and YOU'RE INFECTED WE'RE ALL INFECTED and you're supposed to say "what the gently caress wait what wha!?!?!" The problem is if you're familiar with the lovely history of found footage stories you've been innoculated (heh) to all this stuff before anyway. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_the_Raven In which Clara flips the bird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
The main thing I remember about this episode is when Ashildr says "I do what they tell me and the street is safe" and the Doctor does this cool little wringing his hands thing as he says "who are they" in an incredibly menacing way. Edit: I guess I also remember the bit a few minutes after that, when Clara died.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:I don't disagree. I don't know if Gatiss set out to write it as such or if it was an accidental script of circumstance. It's not great no matter the reason or intent. I admire what it tried even if it failed in all the metrics one could levy against it. Empirical means supported or verifiable by observation, which itself carries subjective connotations, and is therefore an acceptable term if used to justify supposition. For example, I read this quoted post, and conclude that you are empirically stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
I don't know anything about this episode other than the obvious bit. Usually with this season I caught random snippets of what it was about or what happened but this episode...nope. Presumably because Clara's death overshadowed everything else. So I have no idea if it's meant to actually be good or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
It's alright I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
My recollection is that it's OK, the scene between Clara finding out she's about to die and her actually dying goes on way too long, the Doctor does a really good angry menacing act which made me remember why I liked him so much in the 2014 series, and he has a sweet velvet jacket instead of being dressed like a rock dad, which was also nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Escobarbarian posted:I don't know anything about this episode other than the obvious bit. Usually with this season I caught random snippets of what it was about or what happened but this episode...nope. Presumably because Clara's death overshadowed everything else. So I have no idea if it's meant to actually be good or not. Like most of Moffat's "arc" episodes, it takes the characters half the episode just to get to the episode's setting, and before they arrive there's a lot of activity and noise but nothing cohesive happens. Unlike most of Moffat's "arc" episodes, once they do arrive they still have nothing to do, so they all sort of wait around for twenty minutes for Clara to die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
This is a really bad episode with lots of Moffat patting himself on the back over what a noble character Clara is sometimes written as.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
If you take the first letfers of Face the Raven you get FTR. Rearrange them you get FRT and that's f'n A so you get FART which is this season.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:This is a really bad episode with lots of Moffat patting himself on the back over what a noble character Clara is sometimes written as. Sarah Dollard wrote this episode, not Steven Moffat
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 08:03
|
|