The Idiot's Lantern

[parma_violets]

Spoilers for tonight's episode of Doctor Who, the trailer for next week's episode of Doctor Who, and - weirdly - tonight's episode of Casualty.

Comments

[violetcreme]

I'm fairly ambivilant about tonight's episode. As a girly girl, I ooohd and aaahhhd over Rose's pretty costume and as a fan of anything vintage, the set design held my interest more than than the plot in many ways and therein lies the problem. It was *such* a fabulous idea, it should have been brilliant and it was just 'ok'. Some nice touches - Tommy was a a great character played with maturity, Maureen Lipman was fabulous and you're right, the 'Watch With Mother' style delivery and lines were chilling oh, and I liked the continued theme of Rose and her Dad as played out through Tommy but....meh. Other than that it didn't really live up to it's potential

[parma_violets]

I think my view of these things is coloured by the fact that I can't stand science fiction. Seriously. So if Doctor Who isn't good science fiction, I'm OK with that; it's a fantasy/horror show dressed up as a sci-fi show, and it always really has been. (There was an attempt to introduce genuine scientific concepts in the late Tom Baker/early Peter Davison episodes; it resulted in some of the most boring Who ever)

So, yeah... a little more explanation on the Wire would have been nice, but the folk-story effectiveness of a monster taking people's faces through the TV held it together for me.

Tennant still shouts too much, but at least this week it felt it was for a reason. I can understand the Doctor flipping out in that situation; last week, you just wanted to tell him to take a second out and have a good think about what he wanted to say. It remains the fact that the best Tennant performance is still not up to the standard of the worst Eccleston performance.

[violetcreme]

I'm not a SciFi fan either, quite the opposite in fact. I just want it to make some sort of *sense* becuase otherwise, the writer is just assuming I'm stupid. I don't even care if it's a simplistic explanation, the audience is largley kids after all, but to just say "Um it's called 'the wire' and yeah it sucks off faces and then ....they'll get them back again" doesn't cut it. It would have been so much better to see The Doctor take all the facless victims back to the shop and have a lovely scene where he watches as Rose has her face transplated back on again. We'd ahve had the same moment we did get, only resolving the glaring plot hole at the same time

[parma_violets]

I'd always thought the core of the Tenth Doctor was that he's Young And Hip And Sexy, but the anger thing is also being played a lot. Two characteristics in seven episodes, he's really giving a nuanced performance here.

[meegat]

Your comments about Tennant sums it up perfectly.

I enjoyed the ep - but found some of DT very cringe-worthy. Especially when Rose turns up faceless. Why does he constantly shout? It gets very irritating.

Although, another irritating thing, is that the Doctor now seems only to take a situation seriously when it personally affects him - i.e Faceless Rose etc.

[parma_violets]

This is true. Some of Russell T Davies' comments recently have suggested that this might be a plot point. I hope so - I miss the old Doctor, who cared about all life-forms, not just ones he'd either befriended or might be about to get off with. There's a shallowness about the Tenth Doctor, in writing and performance, that bothers me.

[baron_scarpia]

I broadly agree with your assessment of the series so far - I'd rate The Idiot's Lantern slightly higher and you know my contrary thoughts on The Girl in the Fireplace - but someone needs to help rein everything in.

What did you think of the Alexandra Palace finale? I thought it was nigh-on perfect myself. And Maureen Lipman made a truly great villain.

[parma_violets]

Yes, I loved the final set-piece. It was nice to see an episode really build towards its big action moment, and the little moments of upping the stakes - the Wire trying to fry the Doctor, Magpie's neutralisation - were very well-judged.

I'd rate this episode as one of the best of this series, actually. I'm just not sure how it would fare in the previous run.

[boji]

This is important, as we're now over halfway through the new series and I have to say, I'm just not enjoying it as much as I did last year.

And if you scroll through my LJ you'll realise I feel the same. Exactly. I'd been utterly blaming DT until tonight's episode and now I think it's the writing strength (or lack of) that's also at fault. Last season was just more mythic and more powerful both in the writing and in the delivery.

BTW I love Sci-fi (which explains why I watch Stargate which is pants for gawds sake) or rather fantasy rather than hard core sci-fi (will be reading Sherri Tepper when I finish the book I'm reading) and I still think this season is a ton weaker than last.

CE's just in a different league in my book.

[parma_violets]

So I did scroll through your LJ, and you do feel the same. Fancy!

If you'd told me a month or two ago that the writing this season wouldn't be as good as it was last year, I'd probably have blamed all the new writers, but my main headaches have been caused by some of the returning staff. Certainly, the fact that the creator of No Angels is responsible for the best episode of this run so far is breaking my brain. So writing pedigree is now no indicator of whether the episode will be genius or poo.

What this means is that the Matt Jones episodes have a chance of being good. Not a very high chance, admittedly, but the possibility is higher than the possibility of me spending all of tomorrow nursing a supersonic frog.

[boji]

If you'd told me a month or two ago that the writing this season wouldn't be as good as it was last year

I wouldn't have believed it. It blows my TV Drama theory out the water. Yes, I did formulate it on US TV but the theory was that writers cut their teeth in Season 1, raise the bar and dazzle us in Season 2, Season 3 is strong and good but slightly slipping and Season 4 is the start of the end. I refer you to Buffy, The X-Files and probably anything that isn't Babylon 5 though that show had one superb writer who was a genius control freak of a writer/producer so it doesn't count.

No Angels? Oh God the nursing ... show. I didn't know that. Thank you kindly for the information. *shudders*

Is the frog named concorde? *grin*

[parma_violets]

It surely is! When they said he'd been "decomissioned", they weren't talking about dismantling him, theyjust downgraded him from a plane to a frog.

[demona_hw]

It wasn't overstuffed with more plot than forty-five minutes can handle

I think it was a perfectly measured 45 minutes, managing to paint the secondary characters which were always so important to old Who while having suitable build up and resolution to feel unhurried but not underdeveloped. I think this proves that the problem is writers like RTD, not the format per se (not that I'd say no to a little bit more time to develop).

I think his non-shouty moments show that Tennant is at least a good enough actor for the role, if not one of the best ones, but for some reason he, or the directors and producers, are deciding to do something over-the-top. I think his performance is more misjudged than incompetent. I keep on hoping that they'll work this out and we can have a decent Doctor without changing the actor again.

[parma_violets]

Definitely agree about pacing.

The Tennant conundrum, as far as I can see it, is that when he's out of character he seems like the most modest and lovely man imaginable, which can only mean he's being asked to play the Doctor in the most arrogant and annoying manner he can. I hope this isn't going to be one of those Colin Baker scenarios when he only shows what he can do with the role once he's technically left.