ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
When Russell T Davies was showrunner of Doctor Who there was a tonal consistency to the program, and - after "Love & Monsters" proved a bit divisive - each episode was a great, safe action adventure story. Since Steven Moffat has taken over, he's given the writers more freedom (unlike Davies, Moffat doesn't do a final script rewrite of each episode), though this has resulted in a loss of that tonal consistency. Equally, Moffat doesn't deliver great, safe action adventure stories every week. Whereas Davies' Doctor Who was a enjoyable ride through the countryside, Moffat's is more of a rollercoaster, with some huge highs, and a few lows. Truthfully I'm not sure which is the better approach to the program, though the general audience would seem to prefer Davies' approach, but I do think that had Davies remained as showrunner, Doctor Who wouldn't be around today. Moffat doesn't play it safe; he likes to experiment with the formula and takes a very different approach to the series, and that inventiveness keeps it fresh and exciting. Though it doesn't always work...
"Sleep No More", the title of tonight's episode, which you may have missed given the decision to throw away the title sequence (which I think was an excellent idea, frankly...if you're going to commit to found footage, don't ruin it with the title sequence) was one of the most experimental episodes the series has tried from an aesthetic point of view. That said, the story itself was essentially a base under seige story, without the element of an outside agent trying to get in - this time the monsters were already on board waiting to attack. Though we did, of course, get our standard base-commander-gone-nuts character in the form of writer Mark Gatiss' best mate Reece Shearsmith. Shearsmith had a small role in Gatiss' An Adventure In Space And Time, spectacularly failing to convince as Patrick Troughton, but this time round was much, much better. Not quite as effective were the actors playing the four soldiers, none of whom really convinced me that they were trained in any form of military. Indeed from the outset as the commander took the gun from one of her troops, it felt less like a senior officer retrieving a weapon, and more like an actor taking a prop from another actor, which, at the end of the day, it was. It just shouldn't look like that.
The star of this episode, therefore, was neither the actors (though both Capaldi and Coleman were great, they seemed a little on autopilot as well, and at times seemed like completely different characters, particularly in the opening scenes...I'm struggling both with the Doctor's Oliver line and Coleman's circling her face and saying "Not just this", as neither seemed suited to their characters), nor the script, but rather the direction of newcomer Justin Molotnikov. Molotnikov obviously watched Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project before approaching this one, as the monsters first appearance is fleeting, and he tries to never linger to long on them (though this is probably more a horror movie convention than a found footage one). The look and the feel of the episode is very effective, and the found footage aspect doesn't jar with the Doctor Who format, nor does it detract from it.
It does detract a little from the story though. This sort of format requires a simple story, and as I said, Gatiss' script doesn't stray too far from Doctor Who's old fallbacks, but despite that, I have to admit to some confusion at the end. Rasmussen's plan doesn't seem particularly clear, and while I don't necessarily want a complete resolution, a little understanding would have been useful (what was the point of the story exactly?). Perhaps another viewing is required to get it completely sorted out in my head, and perhaps that's a good thing - after all I don't particularly feel chagrined about having to rewatch it, so an episode that begs a second welcome viewing has got to be a good thing, surely?
I'm impressed Doctor Who, despite its age, still has the ability to try something different that will shake the series up a little, and even if it didn't work, we should still be grateful that the creators have the desire and the passion to keep trying to keep the series fresh and interesting.
"Sleep No More", the title of tonight's episode, which you may have missed given the decision to throw away the title sequence (which I think was an excellent idea, frankly...if you're going to commit to found footage, don't ruin it with the title sequence) was one of the most experimental episodes the series has tried from an aesthetic point of view. That said, the story itself was essentially a base under seige story, without the element of an outside agent trying to get in - this time the monsters were already on board waiting to attack. Though we did, of course, get our standard base-commander-gone-nuts character in the form of writer Mark Gatiss' best mate Reece Shearsmith. Shearsmith had a small role in Gatiss' An Adventure In Space And Time, spectacularly failing to convince as Patrick Troughton, but this time round was much, much better. Not quite as effective were the actors playing the four soldiers, none of whom really convinced me that they were trained in any form of military. Indeed from the outset as the commander took the gun from one of her troops, it felt less like a senior officer retrieving a weapon, and more like an actor taking a prop from another actor, which, at the end of the day, it was. It just shouldn't look like that.
The star of this episode, therefore, was neither the actors (though both Capaldi and Coleman were great, they seemed a little on autopilot as well, and at times seemed like completely different characters, particularly in the opening scenes...I'm struggling both with the Doctor's Oliver line and Coleman's circling her face and saying "Not just this", as neither seemed suited to their characters), nor the script, but rather the direction of newcomer Justin Molotnikov. Molotnikov obviously watched Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project before approaching this one, as the monsters first appearance is fleeting, and he tries to never linger to long on them (though this is probably more a horror movie convention than a found footage one). The look and the feel of the episode is very effective, and the found footage aspect doesn't jar with the Doctor Who format, nor does it detract from it.
It does detract a little from the story though. This sort of format requires a simple story, and as I said, Gatiss' script doesn't stray too far from Doctor Who's old fallbacks, but despite that, I have to admit to some confusion at the end. Rasmussen's plan doesn't seem particularly clear, and while I don't necessarily want a complete resolution, a little understanding would have been useful (what was the point of the story exactly?). Perhaps another viewing is required to get it completely sorted out in my head, and perhaps that's a good thing - after all I don't particularly feel chagrined about having to rewatch it, so an episode that begs a second welcome viewing has got to be a good thing, surely?
I'm impressed Doctor Who, despite its age, still has the ability to try something different that will shake the series up a little, and even if it didn't work, we should still be grateful that the creators have the desire and the passion to keep trying to keep the series fresh and interesting.
Reflection: Doctor Who - The Timeless Children
Well I suppose that's Lungbarrow out of continuity... The Timeless Children closes off a season that is without doubt a step up from the previous one, giving us episodes that are of a much higher quality in terms of writing than what we had before, a more confident performance from Jodie Whittaker (though it would appear at the cost of her companions' performances) and Chibnall learning to give 'em the old razzle-dazzle. After watching the episode I kinda thought I liked it. Lots of surprises, shock revelations that would "change everything" and my favourite monsters - the Cybermen. Working with the Master again. Wait-a-minute. Gosh, there's so much I want to say, and in truth most of it is a criticism, which is going to sound very negative, but it's hard to grab hold of the positives. Sorry Chibnall, I'm not sure your end-of-series finale quite pulled it off. I love the Cybermen. They should be brilliant. They were astonishingly scary in the black-and-white days, lumbering around
Reflection: Doctor Who - Ascension of the Cybermen
The Cybermen are an odd Doctor Who monster. As a concept they are wonderfully creepy, but all too often they are used as a standard "monster of the week". In those situations, there's a real problem with how to deal with them, and so as a result they have convenient weaknesses that can be exploited to deal with them. Arguably they aren't the most effective monsters, but when used well, they are definitely the most creepiest. The Lone Cyberman is a great use of the Cybermen, let's be clear. The partially converted head beneath the helmet is disturbing and gives us a better idea of what the Cybermen are supposed to represent. This one, though, is odder than most - an arm from the originals, a body from the most recent, a head from Davies era; he's less a partially converted Cyberman, and more a Frankenstein's monster of Cybermen - pun, presumably, intended. But he works. He has an anger that plays against his emotionless offspring. He's scary because he's a stepping stone, and that
Reaction: Doctor Who #12.8
One of the biggest problems about Doctor Who is that fans - actually not even fans, anyone really - all have their own on idea on what Doctor Who is, and what makes it good. It's part of the reason why Doctor Who feels so different everytime a new producer takes over, and a big part of the reason Doctor Who fans argue over whether the current series is "proper" Doctor Who or not. I won't lie, I've long learned that Doctor Who is anything and changes frequently, but I obviously have a preference and that is scary. Doctor Who needs to be scary. Action/adventure is the secondary genre for me. As such "The Haunting Of Villa Diodati" was always going to have a leg up in terms of brilliance for me. Ghost house...you can't go wrong really. Meeting Byron and Mary Shelley has been a surprisingly long time coming (or not if you like the Big Finish Doctor Who audio stories, and if you do, you probably spent a lot of time fretting over the fact this episode over-writes those). With the Doctor
Reflection: Doctor Who - Can You Hear Me?
There's a new villain in town. He's got a bald head and tattoos and in love with a woman trapped between two worlds feeding off nightmares. He's also playing games with human beings... Is he the Nightmare Man, stepped out of The Sarah Jane Adventures to tussle with the Doctor? Is he the Toymaker, the Doctor's deadly foe resurrected for the new millenium? Or is it the Black Guardian...one of the immortal figures that balance chaos and good in the universe? No. It's not the last two, even though both are mentioned and it's not the first, but just happens to be quite similar. Although I quite like it when the new series references the past, I do feel that name dropping is sometimes a double-edged sword. If you're going to introduce a character very similar to the Toymaker, and then have him say "The Toymaker would be proud", you should possibly be asking yourself either a) why didn't I just make it the Toymaker in the first place, or b) why did I waste time referencing a character so
© 2015 - 2024 DoctorRy
Comments4
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
The "not just this" line was in keeping with the character because Clara has referred to the fact that she knows she's attractive (and thus comes off a bit vain) on numerous occasions, most notably in Deep Breath during her confrontation with Vastra). It's also a meta line addressed to those who think the companion is - or show just be - nothing but eye candy. The Oliver line is fine too - the Doctor has done this before. Does no one remember him reciting the Lion King? And is Oliver any less legitimate than Shakespeare? I saw no problem with either characterization.