The Dr Who thread

[HGFB]

I just read this. Possible spoilers for the Satan Pit (not very big ones mind. Just interesting)

There's action aplenty, but the biggest thing about the epsiode may well be a few words which could have a huge bearing on this series or the next. You'll know them when you hear them! It'll probably be debated for months what they mean, if anything. Things aren't made clear as to whether it's just a passing comment or a massive clue about the future.

[F-ZeroOne]

Rather late to the party, due to one of those video-recording mishaps. Only just found an episode source (thanks, you-know-who - not someone here, AFAIK... )

Wow.

Loved the line about Christmas in Walford. Though someone should perhaps cut back on the amount of Doom 3 allowed in the production offices though...

[aureole]

That was a great episode. The nature of the 2-parter matched the same tease-the-appearance-of-the-baddie that the Cyberman episode did, but it seemed to do it better, somehow. The underground city and the pit seal are all almost cliches, but totally worked for me.

[Kelloggs]

I didn't actually realize that it was a 2-parter - well, OK, I did when part one finished, but not beforehand, if you see what I mean - so I had the opportunity I don't normally get with TV SF these days, of not watching the plot resolve itself in 42 minutes. You know the one; Star Trek Next Gen used to do it occasionally, and Voyager used to do it every single sodding week. And I think Doctor Who benefits from it.

I don't think it's just a throwback to the Old Who, either; I grabbed a VHS copy of Nightmare Of Eden a few years ago (mainly for the utter headfuck of a collision in hyperspace, and K-9 blithely announcing "Beware. Fog is comprised of matter interface." or somesuch.) and the thing that struck me was how little happened between cliffhangers. Alright, you got your standard-sized plot, but it was shoe-horned into 4 twenty-four minute episodes, together with the obligatory ten-minute wander down four identical metal corridors each time. In other words, I do actually think that the new format suits it, but I think two-parters sometimes seem to suit it even better.

[KlaxonCow]

I didn't actually realize that it was a 2-parter - well, OK, I did when part one finished, but not beforehand, if you see what I mean - so I had the opportunity I don't normally get with TV SF these days, of not watching the plot resolve itself in 42 minutes. You know the one; Star Trek Next Gen used to do it occasionally, and Voyager used to do it every single sodding week. And I think Doctor Who benefits from it.

I totally agree (including on the part about not knowing it was a two parter until the end).

I tried making the same point before but made the mistake of saying "like Old Who" (and being misdiagnosed as an Old Who fanboy), when I was trying to suggest that longer episodes allowed for better story-telling - less formula, less cliche - because they have more time to say it.

BBC budget wouldn't allow it but the perfect thing, in my opinion, would be if Doctor Who could have a run as long as American TV - roughly 24 epsidoes - which would mean roughly twice as many episodes. But keeping the same amount of stories - give or take - so that the two-parter is the norm.

One or two single parters could be sprinkled in there and, of course, a three or four parter for some of the stories.

But because there's simply a longer run of 24 episodes a series (as with American TV) then, you know, it's actually balanced out as being more or less the same number of stories. Just more time to tell them in, which would avoid, as you're saying, the "it must all be wrapped up within 42 minutes" syndrome.

The budget probably wouldn't allow it. Which is a shame because I think that would be the happy medium. Good stories wouldn't suddenly be cut off sharply. There'd be less of that thing where the Doctor suddenly springs up a solution - throw the oil on themselves - just to end it all quickly. But if it's a shite story, it wouldn't be that long before it's pissed off again. The longer run of 24 episodes meaning, though, that we actually get the same number of stories in a series.

And to the worry that this would slow the shows down and make them boring: Not really. That's a writing matter. If you want to retain the same pace as a single parter in a two parter then just have twice as many things happening. You could even literally write it as "two one-parters": Two big fights, two cliffhangers. Exactly the same as single episodes in structure but the setting and story can run over the two episodes.

This simply opens up the creative space for the writers. It's more flexible and I genuinely believe it would work to cure the odd complaints that this series curently has (suddenly finding solutions from nowhere and the other cheap excuses that appear from thin air, just to finish it all off inside one episode) without losing the good stuff.

It can still be paced quickly. It's not complicated: Throw more into a story and then it can retain the exact same pace over two episodes.

And, anyway, nothing would prevent - if the story simply isn't that big to justify it - retaining single parters, just as they are, to sprinkle the odd "done and dusted in one episode" story here and there

It's just "leg room". Allows flexibility and creativity. Most of the problems this (and last) series have been the restriction of getting it over by the end of an episode. It's lead to many a "cheap excuse" to finish it all off quickly.

Don't worry, I do realise that the BBC budget for this is almost certainly why it cannot be done. They probably struggle to afford what they are doing already without going near the idea of 24 episode runs.

Also, American TV, of course, is structured for series that long. The famous "clips episode" that most series feature, where they just show clips from earlier episodes with little original footage and only one or two actors? That's a way of taking a rest half-way through making the series - give most people a week off - and that kind of thing just isn't in the make-up of British TV because we've never done it that way (as budgets would never extend that far).

Please don't bite my head off, though. I'm being hypothetical. I know I'm being hypothetical. I don't expect it to happen. I'm just saying that if you could have that "blend" - American series length but same British way of making a show - then you'd have the perfect recipe.

But it's good as it is, of course. tt just seems - which is why I'm being all hypothetical here - that it's sometimes too abrupt to end a show or too little plot because one episode isn't long enough to develop the background story.

Note that, for example, this current story is typical of something that has to be a two-parter because there's too much story to pack into one episode while also trying to keep the tension and the horror. If this had been wrapped up in one episode then, trust me, it wouldn't have worked because to do "horror" needs time because it's all in the "tension" waiting for bad things to happen.

In fact, that's what prompts me to make this suggestion because some of the other one parters just feel "squeezed". The "threat" of Maureen Lipman as the wire wasn't there as much as it should have been, simply because there was not enough time to build the "tension" of her menace. Which you can see in this current episode with the beast. It's just more horrific when, you know, you can "threaten" that the bad guy is coming - that scene with Toby and "don't turn around" - for a while before jumping into the big fight.

Many episodes - for being single parters - just lack that menace from the bad guys because the length of an episode is not long enough to pack that in and give the background story and have the obligatory "emotion" scene with Rose and the Doctor and carry on a subplot with Mickey and show us enough of that story's characters to explain why the bad guy is doing this or that and...and...

It's just my opinion. Please don't kill me for having an opinion. If you disagree then feel free to say so but minus trying to slaughter me as an evil heretic for contemplating that something might be improved by changing it a little.

Thank you.

[HGFB]

Many episodes - for being single parters - just lack that menace from the bad guys because the length of an episode is not long enough to pack that in and give the background story and have the obligatory "emotion" scene with Rose and the Doctor and carry on a subplot with Mickey and show us enough of that story's characters to explain why the bad guy is doing this or that and...and...

It's just my opinion. Please don't kill me for having an opinion. If you disagree then feel free to say so but minus trying to slaughter me as an evil heretic for contemplating that something might be improved by changing it a little.

Someone told me that if I read the last paragraph of your posts I'd get the meaning without having to wade through the stream of conciousness. If we assume the actual last paragraph is the one before you going on about being picked on it's true!

But not always. It depends on the writer. Give the right writer the right story and they can make a single parter shine. Give a two parter to the wrong writer (And I think Russell fucked up with AOL/WWIII) and it might not work.

[Flabio]

Thats just it. A good writer can write something thats engaging whether its a 45 minute episode or a 12 episode arc story.

[Snakey]

(And I think Russell fucked up with AOL/WWIII)

Really? I thought that was great.

[arron]

I liked what was written on the table in the living area..

My pick is for a fight between the thing in the pit and the thing in the TARDIS that makes it go. One light, one dark..

[DutchLlama]

I just rewatched The Idiots Lantern and I heard a line which I missed on the original viewing (always do that since I'm half deaf). "You fought against fascism, don't you remember?".

It just occurred to me that Eddie the overbearing dad was intended as a charicature figure of Adolf Hitler by the writers. He has the same mannerisms you see in a wartime Hanna Barbera or Disney cartoon featuring Hitler (usually together with a 'racist' charicature of a Japanese soldier) with the exploding rages, the sleek black hair and the moustache. It just makes him look like a bit of a cheaply invented character IMHO.

[Kelloggs]

I liked what was written on the table in the living area..

I spotted that myself, and pondered deeply upon where I had seen it before...

And then, suddenly, a light went on!






Sorry.

[Snakey]

I just rewatched The Idiots Lantern and I heard a line which I missed on the original viewing (always do that since I'm half deaf). "You fought against fascism, don't you remember?".

It just occurred to me that Eddie the overbearing dad was intended as a charicature figure of Adolf Hitler by the writers.

Hitler fought against fascism?

[Driller]

I liked what was written on the table in the living area..

I spotted that myself, and pondered deeply upon where I had seen it before...

And then, suddenly, a light went on!






Sorry.

I must have missed that

[Kelloggs]

I liked what was written on the table in the living area..

I spotted that myself, and pondered deeply upon where I had seen it before...

And then, suddenly, a light went on!






Sorry.

I must have missed that

What, the light going on? S'alright. It wasn't very funny anyway.

[teamonkey]

That was a great episode! Far and away the best episode of this series, probably only second to the "are you my mummy" two-parter last series too. Loved the Trogdor reference and there was more than a touch of Firefly and Event Horizon in there too, which isn't a bad thing. A good, proper behind-the-sofa Who. Hopefully the second part won't end in a deus ex machina type cop-out.

Oh, and Scooti.