|
Oh it's a gif that's even neater
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:50 |
|
|
I guess right now he's stuck between a rock and a hard place Get it You get it Posting this was his idea. Oxxidation fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Sep 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Unfortunately the episode is too short to examine that dark, more depressing concept in any greater detail, so that single scene is all we get- it's a nice, emotive scene that works, but it's not enough. I don't blame Moffat- "Blink" is an episode absolutely loving packed with plot to the point where it's kind of a wonder he even was able to fit the more solemn, slow deathbed scene in the first place. But "Blink" is an episode so packed with theme, idea, plot, and generally interesting side characters- not to mention The Doctor and Martha's adventures in 1969, which get completely glossed over- that for once I'd argue that "Blink" could and should have been a two-parter; it's an episode who has all these brilliant ideas that by necessity have to be reduced to a quick line or five-second "scene".
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
They cut down on the number of two-parters because (according to Moffat) it wasn't saving them money, it didn't get them more viewers, and the stories could be written for 45 minutes anyway. I'm not sure if I entirely agree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
A friend of mine played a Weeping Angel. That's my story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:They cut down on the number of two-parters because (according to Moffat) it wasn't saving them money, it didn't get them more viewers, and the stories could be written for 45 minutes anyway. I'm not sure if I entirely agree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Regy Rusty posted:How is an episode supposed to win a person over to loving the Doctor when he barely features in or does anything interesting in it? If I'd watched Blink and then went back to the Pilot, I would've switched it off halfway through and never touched the show again. People say this, but if you did this and then jump to Eleventh Doctor, you can see what they're getting at. Talking about starting points is difficult without being able to talk about the show as a whole, because you have to avoid certain context, so I'll just frame it like this. Blink is a touchstone: you get a creepy 'stalker' alien who exists on the fringes of your mind. You get a redundancy paradox time travel gimmick. If you think Blink is bad on it's own, you're only going to be more disappointed with episodes that throw in more Doctor scenes and his louder, monster movie of the week villains and shouldn't bother going forward. On the other hand, if you thought Blink was great TV, you might like the years that feature more horror, when even the theme tune's trademark warpy frequency noises takes on that X-Files whistling sound. Because the people who want you to start with that episode are usually fans of that era, and usually less fond of the RTD Who with it's action-pulp comic aliens that facerush you while shouting and farting. It's a bad starting point for watching the show in episodic order, but deep down in secret nobody telling you to start with that episode is suggesting you just go onto the very next. But since that's what Occ is doing, we'll just have to accept it as an exceptionally different episode for now. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Sep 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
I think Human Nature/The Family of Blood is way, way, way better as an entry point for Who. and hell, The Christmas Invasion is probably a pretty good litmus test if you want to immediately expose your friend to pure RTD Who without showing them a garbage episode. The Runaway Bride would also be pretty good, because it's isolated from the plot and requires little to no foreknowledge to watch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Episodes where people aren't acting like themselves are terrible entries to a series, no matter how good they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
armoredgorilla posted:Episodes where people aren't acting like themselves are terrible entries to a series, no matter how good they are. Seriously can we rubber-stamp this onto half of your stupid faces? Family of Blood/Human Nature/Blink are all atypical episodes of Doctor Who. They're very good episodes, but atypical nonetheless. The Runaway Bride by contrast, is a very good "typical" episode. Gridlock is a very good "typical" episode. Father's Day, The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances are also very good "typical" episodes. Why is this so hard for some of you grognards to distinguish?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
It is true that you need to get people used to the status quo before you can have fun subverting it. Also that reminds me that the second episode of Star Trek TNG was the one where they all act wildly out of character because of some  nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Seriously can we rubber-stamp this onto half of your stupid faces? Good episodes of Doctor Who are atypical by definition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
marktheando posted:It is true that you need to get people used to the status quo before you can have fun subverting it. Also that reminds me that the second episode of Star Trek TNG was the one where they all act wildly out of character because of some The reason they did that one is because it's a chance to mix up the characters and show growth, and it's also a sequel to an Original Series episode. So objectively it's a lovely decision. Subjectively, in the microcosm of WE ARE DOING THE NEW STAR TREK it probably seemed like a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Mowglis Haircut posted:A friend of mine played a Weeping Angel. What's their first name? I might know them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Arivia posted:The reason they did that one is because it's a chance to mix up the characters and show growth, and it's also a sequel to an Original Series episode. So objectively it's a lovely decision. Subjectively, in the microcosm of WE ARE DOING THE NEW STAR TREK it probably seemed like a good idea. Not just that but Roddenberry was still alive and had a really retarded mandate that "in the future there is no interpersonal conflict", even though to say so is absolute poison to any kind of televised fiction (or non-fiction, these days). So I imagine the writers were frustrated as hell and eager to do anything that'd let them flex their muscles even a little. Then again it's hard to say, a lot of bad script decisions were made during the first two seasons of TNG. Up the Long Ladder and Code of Honor are two of the most racist Star Trek episodes ever conceived, and when you stack them up against the Ferengi you realize that's saying a lot. It's honestly kind-of a miracle it lasted long enough to get good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:It's honestly kind-of a miracle it lasted long enough to get good. Patrick Stewart is just that good 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Patrick Stewart is just that good *adjusts uniform*
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:I think Human Nature/The Family of Blood is way, way, way better as an entry point for Who. and hell, The Christmas Invasion is probably a pretty good litmus test if you want to immediately expose your friend to pure RTD Who without showing them a garbage episode. That's actually the episode combo that got me into the show. I saw an episode from S1 beforehand (well, bits and pieces of it anyways), but it never really hooked me. But yeah, high school me was blown away by those episodes and I haven't looked back since. Blink got me straight up hooked on the series, so much so that I went back and checked out all of the previous stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Glenn_Beckett posted:*adjusts uniform* Hey, the Picard Manoeuvre is taught at the Academy, I won't have you mocking it, Ensign Beckett.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
My intro was... I dunno spoiler policy wrt episode titles so I'll just say Ten's last episode(s). In retrospect it's amazing I got as hooked as I did. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
terrordactle posted:I just want to say that I love Moffat's monsters. They're "spooky" in the sense that they can terrify small kids, but at the same time they have an unnerving "what the gently caress?" angle that makes them scary to many adults. The same with the clockwork men and the empty child. Just this sense of wrongness that comes through and a pseudo-scientific explanation to put a sense of uneasiness inside you where even though you know that the creatures can't exist, there's a part of your brain that goes "he just explained how they could exist! What if they do?!". Yeah, he's really good at coming up with something that's spooky and also makes the characters and the audience really caught in the moment with them. They also do a pretty good job, often, of having their horror-thing connect thematically with whatever character work is being performed in the episode (with the Angels, it's lost potential, wasted lives). I think when he goes back to his own well, he tends not to do very well, though. All of the things in his little box of terrors should be one-offs. I kind of hope that when he retires from being the showrunner, he takes a good long time to write a proper horror movie. He'd be really fantastic at that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:My intro was... I dunno spoiler policy wrt episode titles so I'll just say Ten's last episode(s). The nice thing about ten is that his plots are often utterly insane and bad, but tennant manages to pull them off and be awesome somehow
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:My intro was... I dunno spoiler policy wrt episode titles so I'll just say Ten's last episode(s). Dude I got hooked on the show with an episode that featured this as part of an allegory about BBC internal politics, the history of Doctor Who (and its fandom) and also maybe Mary Whitehouse. I was seven and had no possible frame of reference for understanding any of the broad thematic stuff that makes the serial even remotely interesting. Doctor Who just has this weird power to be so unlike almost anything you've ever seen because it's got basically no shame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
E: fine, completely non spoilery discussion of the way a future actor handles the types of scripts weve already seen removed
bawk fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Sep 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
You may want to edit out your comments on the next Doctor and future seasons in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
death .cab for qt posted:E: fine, completely non spoilery discussion of the way a future actor handles the types of scripts weve already seen removed Why is it so hard to understand, this thread is all about getting their reviews and first impressions of Doctor Who, fresh and unaffected by influence of other peoples opinions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
which is important, dammit!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Me and Oxx are currently arguing over what grade I should give this episode These are the sacrifices I make for you people
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Less whiny more review-y.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Aww, your avatar turned boring.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Whatever grade you want fool
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
umalt posted:Aww, your avatar turned boring. I kinda wish it had like 2 frames of the "IMMA EATCHA" face at some point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:I kinda wish it had like 2 frames of the Fixed that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Maggie Stables, who played Evelyn Smythe, an audio companion of the Sixth Doctor, passed away last friday night after a long illness. I'm not feeling so great right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Maggie Stables, who played Evelyn Smythe, an audio companion of the Sixth Doctor, passed away last friday night after a long illness. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Doctor Who "Utopia" Series 3, Episode 11 "Boom Town". "New Earth". "Rise of the Cybermen". "Love and Monsters". "Smith and Jones". "Daleks in Manhattan". What is the common trait of these episodes, beyond being variously terrible (besides "Smith and Jones", I guess, which is just really disappointing and still pretty bad)? Can you guess? They all were an episode that aired directly after one of the best episodes of the Doctor Who revival up to that point. (In order, the episodes that these episodes followed, were "The Doctor Dances", "The Christmas Invasion", "The Girl in the Fireplace", "The Satan Pit", "The Runaway Bride", and "Gridlock"). It really does seem like Doctor Who has a grand old tradition of following one of its best episodes (either in conception, execution, or both) with one of its worst- and the difference is striking; you look at, say, "The Doctor Dances" and "Boom Town" and it's stunning that those are two episodes from the same show, much less two that followed sequentially from each other. To be honest, I had noticed that most peaks in Who were followed by valleys, but I had never realized that the quality drop was so severe and so predictable before writing up this review. But it's there, and so common as to almost feel planned; but an examination of why this happens so often, without fail, sheds new light on what Doctor Who's strengths and failures are. As people have variously mentioned in this thread from time to time, although the Who revival up to this point was under the direction and leadership of a single person, Russell T. Davies, each individual episode's script has a single writing credit; this could be a major reason why the quality would fluctuate so suddenly on an episode-to-episode basis- even with a showrunner holding the reins of each season's overall arcing and development, the fact is Doctor Who needs someone to write what happens, and even the best ideas that are broken in the room can be executed upon terribly. I don't know how Doctor Who's overall writing process works, but the singular writing credit per episode implies that stories are first broken and then assigned to a given writer in the pool based on whatever byzantine system of favors and interoffice politics Davies engages in, with little to no story/editing or roomwork. This is all a guess, of course (people have even muttered about Davies directly editing ever single script, bar Moffat's, that he got; which, if true, makes the credited writer more of a courtesy title, although makes the wild difference in quality on an episode to episode basis all the more confusing), but the fact that certain writers tend to write certain types of stories- Moffat with his clockwork tales, Gatiss with his more traditional "Spooky stuff in the distant past" fables -that are of a specific tone and even dialog style suggests this is the case. Essentially, Doctor Who is serialized, yes, and contains at least two constant characters- The Doctor, and whoever his Companion(s) is -but beyond that, and whatever nods to a metanarrative, it's an excuse for a bunch of different tv writers to write their own interpretations of the source material. Which, I think, is how the very best episodes of Who, consistently, are followed by some of its worst. When you see someone like Moffat turn in a script like "The Empty Child/Doctor Dances", a two-parter that realizes everything that Doctor Who could and should be, it makes "Boom Town"- an RTD joint -all the worse in comparison because of how poorly it executes on the same generalized themes and ideas. That comparative worseness is what makes for truly wretched episodes of Who- because the episode preceding it implies a quality that the subsequent episode, whether it be "Rise of the Cybermen" or, ugh, "New Earth", utterly lacks to the point where its flaws become tragically, offensively bad over just "bad". They also stink because a lot of these follow-up episodes, whether intentionally or not, try for the same tonal notes that its infinitely superior predecessor knocked out of the park. For instance, "Smith and Jones" tries to catch that lightning in the bottle of introducing an independent, interesting new female Companion that is able to rein in The Doctor's worst habits that "Runaway Bride" exemplified, while having a still fun sort of romp episode, but the romp is much less interesting and Martha is kneecapped by her horrid character treatment as "Not Rose" in a way Donna never was. All this leads to "Utopia", the followup to the best written episode of Who that has existed to this point. Russell T. Davies is the credited writer for this one; these things are usually written mostly-sequentially, so after a certain point he must've known that Moffat was turning in a real banger of a dark, depressing, time-centric horror episode's script, fully in control of its own narrative. RTD is good at a lot of things, but he can charitably be described as "hit or miss" when it comes to plotting, especially in direct comparison to Moffat, especially in direct comparison to one of the best scripts that Moffat has ever written in "Blink". So, whether intentionally or not, RTD ended up sidestepping the entire issue of follow-ups being crushingly bad when penning "Utopia", an episode that, for once, breaks the cycle of terrible episodes following great ones in the Who revival; at the very least, it's decent, and honestly I enjoyed it far more than I did "Blink". "Utopia" begins with The Doctor and Martha landing in present-day Cardiff; he needs it to fuel up the TARDIS, since as "The Unquiet Dead" noted, Cardiff is situated on a big ol' tear in time, which essentially makes it into one city-shaped TARDIS gas station. (As an aside, I do really enjoy it when RTD implies a larger universe and narrative with these sort of persistent little notes; it's things like this constant returning to Cardiff for energy that works better in a serialized fashion that any of his dumbass arc words and most of his metanarratives.) As The Doctor and Martha finish refueling and get ready to leave, Jack Harkness jumps and grabs onto the TARDIS, as it rockets through space and time, depositing the three of them at the end of the universe. Jack seems dead from, essentially, skitching on the TARDIS; however, he soon starts breathing again, and all is well. The Doctor, Martha, and Jack all catch up (or in Martha and Jack's case, get introduced), before puzzling out where they are (again: the end of the universe, a burnt husk of a planet in eternal night because all the stars are dead) before glimpsing a human being chased by the Mad Max reject antagonists of this episode, the Futurekind. With pointed teeth, incessant hissing, painted faces, and generally barbaric behavior, the Futurekind have dominated the wastelands and now hunt down pure-blooded humans for no adequately explained reason. Anyways, the trio escape to one of the last outposts of pure humanity, which is preparing to leave this dead planet for the titular "Utopia", via spaceship. Unfortunately, the main person behind getting the rocket operational, Professor Yana (Derek Jacobi), along with his assistant Chantho (Chipo Chung), is hopelessly lost and appeals to The Doctor for help. After this, the episode is mostly spent on getting the rocket ship operational, and launching it. At the climax of the episode, as the rocket ship blasts off, Professor Yana realizes that the voices he had in his head for his entire life were the result of his fobwatch (which looks exactly the same as John Smith's fobwatch from the "Human Nature" two-parter). He opens it, and recovers his memory as The Doctor did...and becomes The Master, the only remaining Time Lord in the universe, a generally malignant being who is essentially the Moriarity to The Doctor's Sherlock. The Master shoots Chantho, getting fatally wounded in the process, hijacks the TARDIS, and as The Doctor is desperately trying to get back in to his own ship The Master as Professor Yana regenerates into The Master (John Simm) and escapes, as the Futurekind are about to break in and tear The Doctor, Jack, and Martha limb-from-limb. Whether intentional or not, "Utopia" as penned by RTD pushes its plot into the background. This is to its strength, as it avoids even the slightest comparison to "Blink"'s incredibly rich, amazingly well-crafted narrative. The first half of this episode is, basically, a glorified excuse for RTD to have The Doctor, Jack, and Martha bullshit. And it's flat-out incredible. I've complimented RTD before when he recognizes and reins in his own writing problems, and nowhere is that more evident than in the first half of "Utopia". In one memorable sequence, Jack (who still hasn't seen The Doctor since the end of Series 1, remember) asks where Rose is, and The Doctor simply tells him that she's fine, although on her own world (with Mickey and Jackie). It's an incredible little exchange because if you're a Jack fan- and everyone's a Jack fan, because Jack rules -you would expect him to ask after Rose, and the hug and clear relief that The Doctor and Jack share when Jack learns that every one of his former buddies is okay is literally the only time this entire season when Rose's disappearance from the show was handled in a way that made narrative sense, had a payoff, and wasn't just a barefaced excuse from RTD to pointlessly pine after Rose. It's also a narrative payoff two seasons in the making, and works on the level of supporting Jack's serialized character from his exit two seasons ago. It's the way Rose's disappearance should have been handled all season- as a catalyst for emotional growth, sure, and yeah it could and should be referenced when appropriate, but it shouldn't dominate every episode and The Doctor shouldn't be dwelling on it every other minute- nowhere is this more evident by The Doctor not even volunteering that information to Jack; he only responds with her status when asked. That same sort of sensibility of recognizing past problems is encapsulated in this wonderful exchange, as Martha learns of how The Doctor had abandoned Jack after the events of "The Parting of the Ways": Martha: "Is that what happens, though, seriously? D'you just get bored of us one day and disappear?" Jack: "Not if you're blonde." Martha (sarcastically): "Oh, she was BLONDE?! OH WHAT A SURPRISE!" Not only is it funny, not only is it great character work for everyone involved, but it affirms and makes more palatable the transgressions vis a vis Rose this season in a smart and hilarious way. This is, when I like RTD, why I like RTD: he does seem to learn from his mistakes, even if it takes a while. This writing style of retroactively smoothing out narrative pitfalls is what leads to, in my opinion, the single best scene of the episode, as its revealed that Jack is now immortal- he dies, but only temporarily, as the beginning of the episode foreshadows -and he and The Doctor have a nice long conversation about how that happens. It's a brilliant little scene, for many reasons: One, John Barrowman is a great actor, Jack Harkness is a great character, and to fans of Doctor Who since its overall wretched first series, this is some long-awaited dimensionality to a fantastic character we haven't seen much of if at all since he left the show almost two seasons prior. It's also a great scene because, after so long, The Doctor finally has someone he can truly relate to; Jack's sort of optimistic fatalism, combined with his deeply buried death wish (after surviving for literally centuries, having died dozens of times just to hitch a ride with The Doctor again), creates a pained, sort of darkly depressing backstory to Jack that makes sense and puts a very bitter edge on his previous sort of happy-go-lucky complete disregard for his own safety that was the source of his constant quipping. Jack jokes because if he didn't, he'd start sobbing; he can never die, even if he wants to, but through it all he grins and bears it as his lot in life. What's most fascinating is The Doctor revealing that the events in "The Parting of the Ways", with Rose-God reviving him, is the source of Jack's immortality; even as an omnipotent being, Rose was still an idiot because, well, she's Rose so ended up accidentally making him immortal. Now, at this point Jack would have every right to blame Rose, to curse her name as the source of his literal centuries of suffering, but instead he shakes it off and asks if she could possibly reverse it. This is, essentially, the essence of why Jack is such a great character; despite being a rake and a bit of a whore and kind of a huge conman, he's a guy who doesn't really blame others for his problems. He's a guy who favors solving things over whining about them, on top of being, essentially, a pretty good guy at heart, and it's why he's so great. Giving him the double-edged sword of immortality is a way to darken his backstory and give him some legitimate pathos, not to have John Barrowman whining about his lot in life. This sort of drive in the face of destruction is why Jack is so great, and so great to watch, and it's all summed up accurately in this little exchange: The Doctor: "Do you wanna die?" Jack: "Ohhhh, this one's a little stuck..." The Doctor: "Jack..." Jack: "...I thought I did. I don't know. With this lot. You see them out here, surviving...and that's fantastic." It is. It is fantastic. Jack recognizes the game for what it is and, much like The Doctor, has gained enough hard-won life experience from his unique circumstances to gain drive from those small wonders. It's a brilliant scene, the best of the episode, because of how well it illuminates The Doctor's personality, especially when we see the flip side of his personality in the way The Master is revealed, as Professor Yana slowly succumbs to darkness. Derek Jacobi is an incredible actor, and he absolutely owns Yana in a way that's cinematically electrifying, and there's a lot that could be said in the narrative juxtaposition between The Doctor (and Jack) reaffirming his faith in the human race as Yana slowly loses it- The Master is an evil, calculating man who views everyone around him as glorified pawns. In addition, the episode's reinforcement of The Doctor having finally found a confidante and sounding board as another Time Lord is revealed puts an even further emphasis on how different The Doctor and The Master are before they even confront each other. John Simm as the reincarnated Master is deliciously hammy in the opposite direction as Tennant is as The Doctor, so you even get a sort of Eccleston-Tennant vibe in the differences in approach between Jacobi and Simm. All of these things are good, and even in the moment the Master reveal, as Professor Yana intones, "I. Am. The Master," is powerfully effective and suitably threatening. But that's the problem- in the moment. Here was my verbatim reaction to The Master reveal, to Oxx: I quoted the above line, because I knew I was gonna use it in this review, and then the very next thing I said was "who the heck is The Master". That was my honest to God reaction! Because here's the thing...yes, The Master reveal, again in the moment, was cool and narratively worth it. But it wasn't alluded to or built up, ever, within any episode prior to this one. As I understand it, The Master is a long-running Old Who villain, back from the serials, who frequently appeared; that's fine. But if you never saw those episodes then half of the impact of the reveal completely fizzles. If you're like me, then you go "That was cool! Wait, who the gently caress is that guy?" If you entire episode builds to this sort of twist, and the twist just does not land (or only partially lands) with a majority of your audience because it demands that you had been an ardent fan of media that is not within the universe of whatever fiction you create, that's a fundamental writing failure. This is not how storytelling should ever, ever work: There's a difference between a sly reference that's red meat to the hardcore (something ignorable), and building to a reveal that demands exacting knowledge. It's an objectively bad way to write, and it almost completely destroys the goodwill this episode had built by how ineptly it was executed, even if in the moment it worked. All that being said, I, well, I prefer this episode to "Blink". It's a worse written episode than "Blink", it's nowhere near as well-constructed, paced, shot as "Blink", the enemies are worse (way worse), and the reveal is kinda bad in comparison to "Blink"'s absolutely brilliant ones...but I liked it more than "Blink". The RTD-Moffat...let's be nice and call it "debate" is one of the most hotly contested ones in this thread. It mostly boils down to a bunch of nerds arguing with each other and getting all angry about dumb bullshit, but if you want any more evidence of the differences between Moffat and RTD, there is no better comparison than "Blink" and "Utopia". They follow each other naturally, and pretty much utterly encapsulate the differences in approach between both writers. Moffat's a better writer than RTD, in nearly every aspect. I mean, he objectively is: I loving defy you to find three better written episodes of Who than the "Empty Child" two-parter and/or "Blink". In contrast, RTD is a dude who is often times incoherent, whose plots are at best threadbare and at worst toxic, a dude obsessed with characterization (whether positive or negative) over plotting, and he has an all-in approach to every script that produces some absolutely repellent episodes of unwatchable dreck. All that being said, and looking at ALL the failures of "Utopia" in comparison to "Blink", a perfect little piece of tonal storytelling that is every single one of Moffat's strengths writ large...I prefer "Utopia". I loved "Utopia", I liked "Blink". In the grand RTD-Moffat Civil War, I've fallen to RTD's "side"; he's a worse writer, like objectively speaking, but when I think back on "Blink" I think, as a writer, that it's an incredible script incredibly executed, but as I clumsily mentioned in the last review, it didn't make me feel stuff. This sounds rather more damning than I mean, but to me "Blink" feels rather...sterile, like a wonderfully crafted jewelry box but at the end of the day it's still, well, it's still just a box. Even though "Utopia" is often messy, with a kind of garbage "antagonist" in the Futurekind and, as I've mentioned before, the problems with The Master reveal- not to mention the kind of super racist existence of Chantho, Jesus Christ RTD have you ever met an Asian person -all that falls away because the specific highs of the episode: the sorrow I felt for Jack, the wonder and encroaching fear of The Master reveal, the sadness I felt for The Doctor, as he begs: "Master...I'm sorry."- these, well, these are the things that will stick with me when this whole experiment is over. Not the Weeping Angels, the moments of overwhelming emotionality I felt for these characters that I had grown to understand and even sorta love is why I watch this show. Moffat is a writer who is technically impressive, one who I can't stop complimenting on an objective level; one who I aspire to be more like in the way he conceives and executes his stories, but I dunno if I'll ever be in love with his output in the way I can, specifically, be in love with RTD's output even in a mess of an episode like "Utopia". In a way, this whole thread was probably building to this confession, because on some level (Christ this sounds self-aggrandizing), the differences in personalities between myself and Oxx are pretty much the differences in personalities between RTD and Moffat. It's the difference between emotionality between objectivity, left brain and right brain, not between sexism and not-sexism (which as far as I've seen, is a loving laughable assertion to make against Moffat, personal statements aside) or tired ideas and kitchen-sink storytelling, or any of that: It's the difference between liking a guy because he goes for those big, emotional moments and often fails, or liking a guy who goes for a well-constructed narrative and tortures himself to do so. That's, ultimately, it. I prefer RTD, at this point, but you're not wrong or stupid if you prefer Moffat; you just have a different definition of what you want out of the show as a whole, which is rather the point of the thing. Right? Grade: C Random Thoughts:
NieR Occomata fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Edit: nvm, I'll save my thoughts on the RTD-Moffat civil war until we get to some later episodes. It's a hard thing to comment on at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Jacobi was so good as Yana/The Master but I had the exact same reaction Occ -- I had no idea why "The Master" was a big deal until I googled it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:50 |
|
|
You hit the core of it. Why I personally prefer RTD's stuff over Moffat's. RTD is very sincere, very heartfelt. And it shows. It may not always work, but it loving shows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 04:15
|
|
