(no subject)
Nov. 22nd, 2021 01:15 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
evening_tsarI feel contractually obliged to comment every time there is a new Doctor Who out. Even as I compose my thoughts for a longer, more in-depth piece on how I feel about the era and why, here are a few rough notes while they are fresh in the memory:
"Village of the Angels" was a blast. Let's get that out of the way right away. I had fun, I want to see what happens next week. It was fast paced, atmospheric, atmospheric and exciting. Professor Jericho and young Peggy Hayward, for their small contributions, were delights to watch on screen. Dan is proving a great addition to the TARDIS team - he seems to get that a companion's job is to point at things and exclaim "WHAT'S THAT DOCTOR???" and nothing more. And the cliffhanger. . . if I couldn't predict exactly how it would be resolved I might be impressed.
Which brings us to the inevitable caveats, which will always apply any time Chibnall or, alas, Davies writes a script. (Hence the longer piece which is on its way):
To whit:
-There's no way the elder Peggy Hayward was 77 years old. 67 at most. We'll let that one pass.
- Are people really stupid enough to go ANYWHERE with Azure? When someone who looks like a crystalline La Catrina escaped from the scariest ever Dia del los Meurtos parade beckons you to approach and accompany a giant Darkseid impersonator, do you really think she's taking you to a picnic? Is there anyone anywhere who wouldn't shit their pants and run the other way? Maybe they don't have horror movies on this planet. Or Dia del los Meurtos parades.
- Again, the Doctor's so absent-minded, she can't seem to finish a sentence. "Quirky" taken too far can become "insufferable". Directly resulting in:
- One-liners stretched into mini- monologues. Again, Chibnall doesn't trust the audience to get the joke. Comic timing is not his forte.
So far, pretty "so what?" I can forgive the first two and overlook the third. Then we get a bit deeper.
- I don't want to know about the Division. I don't want that to be the Doctor's past: basically a secret agent of some galactic law enforcement agency. I hate that idea. That that represents the majority of the Doctor's existence, experienced through thousands of pre-Hartnel incarnations. . . No. I'm not going there. I think that's a wretched idea and a terrible place to take the mythos. So anything Chibnall does from this point on, even if fun and exciting like "Village of the Angels", it will meet an automatic veto in my imagination. I've been into this franchise too deeply for too long to recognize that snot-nosed reimagining sneezed all over it. I'm just not on this train.
Two more things:
-Interrupting the end credits was a terrible idea. I mean, "NEXT WEEK" previews are bad enough - continuing the story during the credits is even worse. The current era just really hates the end credits. The cliff-hanger was brilliant - let it sink in. Let it digest. Nevermind those love love-struck nimrods. I honestly couldn't care less about Vinder and whatsername. Honestly don't give a damn. Why an extra minute of love-dovey-dialogue was thought worth undercutting the best cliff-hanger of recent times is beyond me. Well not really: lovey-dovey-dialogue is a great way to rope in simple-minded viewers. It's the secret of almost every blockbuster in the history of Hollywood. Already, piles of Twitter-Twits are swooning over it. So I understand its usage but not its appeal. Makes me go pukey-pukey. Anyone who writes or enjoys lines like "love is the only mission" can kiss my ass.
-Just when I thought the Doctor might actually praise a scientist (Professor Jericho) for being a scientist she spits out
a line about things being "beyond his comprehension".
Sorry? Seems an odd way to shoot down an inquisitive mind. Does Chibnall understand what it means to be "beyond comprehension"? That's basically a cop-out. A surrender to ignorance.
If the Professor is asking questions, and showing curiosity, and genuinely trying to understand a new phenomena, and almost relishing it to boot, how can anyone say it's "beyond his comprehension"? Why not give him a chance?
If the line had been "outside his experience", it might have come across as praise. As is, it makes scientific inquiry sound pointless and foolish. The classic Doctors would never have been so dismissive.
That is where Chibnall and I part company. I just don't think his worldview is compatible with mine.
Maybe I'm just being grumpy. But I've got an ear for detail and I can't ignore it.
Even if the Angels were pretty cool. . .
"Village of the Angels" was a blast. Let's get that out of the way right away. I had fun, I want to see what happens next week. It was fast paced, atmospheric, atmospheric and exciting. Professor Jericho and young Peggy Hayward, for their small contributions, were delights to watch on screen. Dan is proving a great addition to the TARDIS team - he seems to get that a companion's job is to point at things and exclaim "WHAT'S THAT DOCTOR???" and nothing more. And the cliffhanger. . . if I couldn't predict exactly how it would be resolved I might be impressed.
Which brings us to the inevitable caveats, which will always apply any time Chibnall or, alas, Davies writes a script. (Hence the longer piece which is on its way):
To whit:
-There's no way the elder Peggy Hayward was 77 years old. 67 at most. We'll let that one pass.
- Are people really stupid enough to go ANYWHERE with Azure? When someone who looks like a crystalline La Catrina escaped from the scariest ever Dia del los Meurtos parade beckons you to approach and accompany a giant Darkseid impersonator, do you really think she's taking you to a picnic? Is there anyone anywhere who wouldn't shit their pants and run the other way? Maybe they don't have horror movies on this planet. Or Dia del los Meurtos parades.
- Again, the Doctor's so absent-minded, she can't seem to finish a sentence. "Quirky" taken too far can become "insufferable". Directly resulting in:
- One-liners stretched into mini- monologues. Again, Chibnall doesn't trust the audience to get the joke. Comic timing is not his forte.
So far, pretty "so what?" I can forgive the first two and overlook the third. Then we get a bit deeper.
- I don't want to know about the Division. I don't want that to be the Doctor's past: basically a secret agent of some galactic law enforcement agency. I hate that idea. That that represents the majority of the Doctor's existence, experienced through thousands of pre-Hartnel incarnations. . . No. I'm not going there. I think that's a wretched idea and a terrible place to take the mythos. So anything Chibnall does from this point on, even if fun and exciting like "Village of the Angels", it will meet an automatic veto in my imagination. I've been into this franchise too deeply for too long to recognize that snot-nosed reimagining sneezed all over it. I'm just not on this train.
Two more things:
-Interrupting the end credits was a terrible idea. I mean, "NEXT WEEK" previews are bad enough - continuing the story during the credits is even worse. The current era just really hates the end credits. The cliff-hanger was brilliant - let it sink in. Let it digest. Nevermind those love love-struck nimrods. I honestly couldn't care less about Vinder and whatsername. Honestly don't give a damn. Why an extra minute of love-dovey-dialogue was thought worth undercutting the best cliff-hanger of recent times is beyond me. Well not really: lovey-dovey-dialogue is a great way to rope in simple-minded viewers. It's the secret of almost every blockbuster in the history of Hollywood. Already, piles of Twitter-Twits are swooning over it. So I understand its usage but not its appeal. Makes me go pukey-pukey. Anyone who writes or enjoys lines like "love is the only mission" can kiss my ass.
-Just when I thought the Doctor might actually praise a scientist (Professor Jericho) for being a scientist she spits out
a line about things being "beyond his comprehension".
Sorry? Seems an odd way to shoot down an inquisitive mind. Does Chibnall understand what it means to be "beyond comprehension"? That's basically a cop-out. A surrender to ignorance.
If the Professor is asking questions, and showing curiosity, and genuinely trying to understand a new phenomena, and almost relishing it to boot, how can anyone say it's "beyond his comprehension"? Why not give him a chance?
If the line had been "outside his experience", it might have come across as praise. As is, it makes scientific inquiry sound pointless and foolish. The classic Doctors would never have been so dismissive.
That is where Chibnall and I part company. I just don't think his worldview is compatible with mine.
Maybe I'm just being grumpy. But I've got an ear for detail and I can't ignore it.
Even if the Angels were pretty cool. . .
