The Dr Who thread

[Zoot]

I've been teasing them about the Master coming back and that it was really the woman in the red dress ot could have been. At one point she comes back to the main flight deck with the Master and seems to have a black eye, was that a hint at hidden violence or something else?

It was to hint at her violent relationship, as discussed in the episode commentary.

Can you expand on this, please, Harley?

[merman]

Actually, there seemd to be something missing, explaining more of the Saxons' relationship...

[Harlequin]

I've been teasing them about the Master coming back and that it was really the woman in the red dress ot could have been. At one point she comes back to the main flight deck with the Master and seems to have a black eye, was that a hint at hidden violence or something else?

It was to hint at her violent relationship, as discussed in the episode commentary.

Can you expand on this, please, Harley?

Not much more was said about it, only that they wanted to hint at her physical suffering as the Master's British wife, as I recall.

[offyoutoddle]

The whole music and dance routine bit to imply 'madness' was a terrible idea and should have been dropped after ep 12. Having music play over the end of episode 12 as the orbs began their descent to Earth ruined what was otherwise a good moment.

Yes. These bits made me cringe more than any other.

Overall, I still managed to enjoy it, but I enjoyed this week's Jekyll more.

sorry, glowy floaty bits made me cringe the most. Why don't we all just sit around the fire and sing Kumbaya? Fuck what an atrocious lazy bit of writing. I don't care if RTD has a BAFTA, he can shove it up his arse if that's the best he can do after setting it up so well for the last few episodes. As for by the way, Jack is the face of Boe at the end..

But looking for the positive, glad to hear that Freema will be back a bit next season, and Torchwood will have her in too - good. Massively underused character, and she was pretty good i thought.

[xav]

It started so well with the world ravaged for a year to create that post apocalyptic feel that we go for in this country

Absolutely. I wish they'd made the previous week's episode into an end-of-season cliffhanger, then come back in season 4 with a two - or even three - parter focussing on Martha's role in the post-apocalyptic world.

Of course if they had done that then they would have needed a better ending than "time rolled back and everyone but us knows nothing about what happened", because after a few episodes of "Martha Jones: Freedom Fighter" that ending would have been equivalent to resolving it all with "and then she woke up and realised it had all been a bad dream".

[KlaxonCow]

BBC may say that, but RTD has said on more than one occasion that "It's for the kids."

Which probably explains why his episodes are generally complete shit.

But that implies that if it's made for kids then it has to be shit, which of course isn't the case (there have been some excellent 'kids only' dramas over the years).

No, what it is meant to imply is that if one has "it's for kids" emblazened across one's mind as some kind of "prime directive", while writing a script, then it almost invariably becomes highly contrived bullshit. Not only for adults but also for the kids.

Because you're preoccupied with putting in another contrived "monster of the week" for the kids, even when it's totally inappropriate to do so for the story. Because you're hesitating over making the storyline consistent and coherent, in case it's "too complicated" for the kids.

And, invariably, because adults who deliberately "write for kids", almost always write patronisingly down to them. Because adults see kids differently to how kids see themselves. Kids are cute-looking to adults, so stories for kids are often full of cute-looking animals and characters. Some kind of strange "cute-looking things must like other cute-looking things" rationale.

But, out of kid's eyes, they see no cuteness in themselves or their contemporaries at all - that's just how kids look - and see a big strange malformed world (often slightly ugly) full of mystery and general weirdness stretching way too far in all directions.

The classic children's authors - who've stood the test of time - actually present weird malformed and often slightly "subversive" worlds to the kids and the kids absolutely adore it.

I remember at school, there was a book about Santa Claus which actually treated him as a grumpy realistic character. That was a massive favourite for the kids, who'd pull it down to laugh at Santa Claus having a shit. And then he'd be effing and blinding across the pages, nothing ever working out for him.

To many adults, the idea of subverting the sacrosanct idea of Santa Claus and even making him a grumpy rather unpleasant character is utterly inconceivable. No, Santa must be a nice kind old man and his elves cute and industrious in making the toys for the good kids, right?

Not if you ask the kids. They literally would rush to pull the book down from the shelf completely voluntarily without a single prompt. Amongst all the cute and safe books and stories, it was Santa having a shit that easily trumped them all.

In fact, ask yourself why all the best children's literature and stories simultaneously work for adults too?

Also, consider the effect of having Mum and Dad watching your show with you and rather than trying to slope off and let the kids watch it, you're just as much on the edge of your seat, shouting at the Doctor to use his sonic screwdriver along with the kids. If you can tear yourself away momentarily from the action, notice that the kid's excitement doubles when Mum and Dad are also getting genuinely excited with them (oh, and it has to be genuine, as kids are amazingly good lie detectors).

All that constant self-censorship to make sure that a story is "appropriate", kills the story-telling instincts themselves.

The best kids' stories are simply written as good stories - for everyone. They are just stories which naturally don't need any swearing or sex scenes or excessive violence to be told. They are not "made appropriate for children" but are just naturally appropriate anyway, because nothing "adult" needs to be included to tell that story.

In fact, if a story can give the kids the impression that it's kind of "adult" - maybe even a little forbidden - even if, really, it actually isn't at all, then, man, do the kids love that.

What I'm implying is that if you start with the thought "it's for kids" in your head then you will end up producing contrived bullshit.

You know, you start by thinking "what's the monster of the week this time?" and "oh, the kids will want laser guns and a mad 'gadget of the week' too, so I better work out how I can squeeze that in" and start putting together not a story, but a series of contrived "for kids" ideas and then desperately try to sew them together into a narrative, the end result almost inevitably will be the kind of contrived bullshit "series of ideas with not much holding them together" that your average RTD episode tends to be.

Compare with Moffat.

Almost universally agreed by everyone, his episodes are easily the best. He also puts in some of the best "scare the kids" stuff - "are you my mummy?", clockwork robots under the bed and the near-cruelty of making kids think they can't blink near any statue anywhere - so you can't say he doesn't write well "for the kids" either.

But check out some of those locations: World War II, 18th century France. Doesn't immediately spring to mind as very "for kids", does it? And that's simply because it isn't. Jack shows up and is overtly bisexual, copping on with anything. Madame de Pompadour was the King's mistress. Making a "kids' show" sexy? That can't be right, surely?

His monsters also always have a plausible-ish explanation (and he proves that you can absolutely 100% get the "science" part of sci-fi to work coherently, without compromising an ounce on "emotion" or "story". Something RTD - and other writing on this thread have echoed - seems to feel is mutually exclusive and impossible to do).

The medical nano-bots created monsters because, in trying to put people back together again, they misinterpreted what was "normal", creating monsters by accident. The clockwork robots were trying to fix their ship and seeing people as just organic parts to be used to do that, misunderstand that the ship's name being "Madame de Pompadour" is merely metaphorical, not a literal indication that she is the ship. And, much like how Douglas Adams used to do it, the way he can turn a scientific idea - quantum collapse - into an idea for statue monsters that only move when they aren't being observed, is a stroke of genius writing.

On Confidential, when Moffat's asked where he got the idea for the ticking clockwork robots, he says "well, that kind of thing scared me as a kid and, to be honest, still does". He's not writing "for kids". He's writing a good story for himself. He just keeps in mind to make sure it works on the kid's level too.

Note that the "Human Nature" episode - which comes from a novel - has a similar attitude (I mean, it's set in a school and so kids could identify with that but it's not overtly or specifically a "kids' story") and is also one of the better episodes.

These writers don't have the false dichotomy of "kids' show" / "adult show" in their heads and write a good story for everyone (I mean, the WWI and WWII stuff - that memorial service - will even ring bells with Grandad and Granma too).

Kids are just adults who've not lived as long. They aren't aliens from the planet Zarg. They ain't stupid, just ignorant of how the world works (although, that said, your average adult is only fractionally better. Adults just love to pretend they know everything, even when they clearly don't).

I bet all those kids' dramas you're referring to basically have the same attitude and that's what makes them good. For both kids and adults alike.

The other interesting thing is that when RTD writes other things - freed from his "it's for kids" memetic chains - he's generally a good writer. He can do it. But the "it's for kids" meme in his head is making him cripple and self-censor himself all the time and he seems to concentrate more on throwing in a gimmick "for the kids" than thinking about a good coherent storyline.

In a sense, he's working backwards. You should think of the story first and let it write itself. Then, okay, look over it and maybe tweak it to be "appropriate" for the young 'uns.

But he seems to be thinking of the "for kids" gimmicks first and then trying to cobble together a disjointed storyline out of these gimmicks (and then, worse, excuses away the fact that it's incoherent with "it's a kid's show" and "it's Doctor Who". No, I'm not saying Doctor Who is Shakespearean literature or needs to be as meticulously planned as Tolkien or anything, but if you excuse away every fault as "it's only Doctor Who" then you're on a slippery slope to having no coherency at all. Because any time you make a mistake, you just "ah, it's only Doctor Who" and, apparently, all incompetence is excused away. Again, it's an attitudinal thing. If you think what you're working on is inherently shit, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that it slowly descends into shit because you stop trying to make it better than that).

Well, this is my opinion. I acknowledge it's an opinion and I may very well be talking out my arse and totally wrong. Sorry it's so long - I know how that irks some - but I was originally content to just make my earlier one sentence comment, I've been coaxed to explain it further by it being misunderstood. I will return to "lurk mode" hereafter (so if you're annoyed, please don't kick up a fuss, as it'll only encourage me to be dragged back into the conversation when I'm actually trying to back out of it).

[Zoot]

Well, the first time I watched it I was dissapointed, and I have watched it twice more to see whether my expectations were too high. I didn't mind the floaty doctor, and thought the doffs of the hat to other films were ok too.

However, overall it could have been so much more and it left me feeling empty.

But, Martha, a good companion? She whinged and looked lovesick through the whole series (not Freema's fault, of course), but it grated with me so much that here saying "No" at the end almost made me cheer with joy. "Begone, foul dwimmerlaik", I yelled in glee, only to find this morning that the soppy old bat will be coming back again. Lord help us, but the answer was there in "Blink", was it not? An attractive, gutsy, inventive female with more testosterone than most blokes. Gah - an opportunity sadly missed.

Martha Jones - freedom fighter? Give me a BREAK. When she waddles ashore from that boat at the beginning, can you honestly say that she inspired you like Linda Hamilton in Terminator? Get a grip, people, she was just not believeable.

[WiteWulf]

Lord help us, but the answer was there in "Blink", was it not? An attractive, gutsy, inventive female with more testosterone than most blokes. Gah - an opportunity sadly missed.

Agreed...we badly need another Sarah Jane or Romana II, imho.

The idea of the companion as the 'Everyman' character who gives the human angle on what's happening in each story is fine up to a point but after a while you really need someone who's on a level with The Doctor to drive the stories better.

[DutchLlama]

No, what it is meant to imply is that if one has "it's for kids" emblazened across one's mind as some kind of "prime directive", while writing a script, then it almost invariably becomes highly contrived bullshit. Not only for adults but also for the kids.

You should post this on Outpost Gallifrey.

[grue]

No, what it is meant to imply is that if one has "it's for kids" emblazened across one's mind as some kind of "prime directive", while writing a script, then it almost invariably becomes highly contrived bullshit. Not only for adults but also for the kids.

You should post this on Outpost Gallifrey.

I've been watching Full Metal Alchemist and hats off to the Japanese for not insulting their children's intelligence. Complex plots, death of minors, questionning of religion and state. Why can't we westerners treat our children with the same respect?

[WiteWulf]

Same goes for Neon Genesis Evangelion, Cowboy Bebop and most Miyazaki ...you can pretty much take your pick from anime for non-intelligence-insulting plot and characters.

[anon76235]

RTD STAY OUT OF WHO

[HGFB]

No, what it is meant to imply is that if one has "it's for kids" emblazened across one's mind as some kind of "prime directive", while writing a script, then it almost invariably becomes highly contrived bullshit. Not only for adults but also for the kids.

You should post this on Outpost Gallifrey.

He'd get lynched

I'll repeat what I just said in irc

RTD annoys me. I know the fucker can write good sci-fi. I've read it. I also know the fucker can write good children's sci-fi. I've seen it. So why the fuck is he so shite sometimes at writing Doctor Who?

[Gorecki]

Why can't we westerners treat our children with the same respect?

Yeah, if only we had our own Brad Bird, Stephen Moffat, JK Rowling or Joss Whedon.

Erm, hang on.

[KlaxonCow]

You should post this on Outpost Gallifrey.

He'd get lynched

A not-unfamiliar feeling.