There Are Explosive Kegs Between My Legs

Apr 05, 2006 17:31

Wondering whether to have a bottle of wine tonight. For some reason the start of summer gets me in a kind of "let the records show that the witness made the 'drinky-drinky' motion" kind of mood. I may as well get it out of my system. I mean, you're only young once. And a stitch in time saves nine, etc.

Rewatching series one of Doctor Who, I'm ( Read more... )

wine, al-key-hol, doctor who

Leave a comment

parma_violets April 5 2006, 19:18:34 UTC
I think it's the science fiction that always lets him down, and I speak as someone who's always viewed Doctor Who as a fantasy-horror show pretending to be a sci-fi show and not really pulling it off. The problem is that Davies seems to think that writing in a non-realist genre means he can just make it up as he goes along, and that's not the case at all. Compare 'The Unquiet Dead' and 'Dalek' with 'Boom Town' or 'Rose' - the former group might be silly in a lot of ways, but they take place in a clearly-defined universe with their own rules and lists of things you can and can't do. The latter group just pulls things out of its arse.

I never really watched Farscape, so I'll take your word for it. Myself, I think that - with the exceptions of 'The End of the World' and 'Bad Wolf' - each Davies episode had at least one moment where the pacing went to pot, or the tone, or both at the same time.

I've got to admit, I'm a bit worried about the new writing staff. There is, however, one fellow writing for the 'Boom Town' "reflective" slot who was behind a ripping BBC time-travel drama called Life on Mars earlier this year, and he at least had the sense to bring Gatiss and Moffat back.

Reply

simian_jack April 5 2006, 19:36:42 UTC
That first paragraph is spot on, all of it. DW never had to be more plausible than the plot or tone required, but the plot devices must follow an internal logic. That's why I worry about Davies' stewardship - bad enough he thinks that if it's sci-fi it doesn't need to be sensible as long as it's "wierd", but even with the other writers involved there's no consistent logic from one episode to the next. In Father's Day, the averted death of a single insignificant man lets loose some sort of ultra-dimensional time devourers, but the wholsale alteration of Earth's timeline revealed in The Long Game results in...what again? Nothing, no consequences at all. Where're the beasties? Better, where's the oversight? Who's the script editor, and what's he thinking/

Reply

parma_violets April 5 2006, 19:42:14 UTC
A script editor, that's what they need! I mean, they had one, but I sometimes got the feeling that Davies' stewardship of the show - and perhaps understandable gratitude at the fact that he almost single-handedly revived the show - prevented them from vetoing some of his less impressive ideas.

I hate to make it sound like I dislike the new series - I've enjoyed revisiting it greatly, and am happy to have it as a permanent part of my DVd collection, while the experience of watching it with non-fans who are just happy to have something original and witty on Saturday nights has been beautiful and euphoric. Even the worst episode of the new series has something special and beautiful in it, and I don't know another current series that can make such a boast. It's just that whenever I watch Davies' episodes, I feel this irrational urge to get the red pen out.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up