A Christmas Carol

[professor_spork]

Hoo boy, do I have feelings. marlenanargle and I watched it together, so I'll be relying on our chat for structure.

Comments

[beingfacetious]

I kind of operate on the "rules don't count in Christmas specials" frame of mind, and I actually really really enjoyed this episode (partially because I was convinced AT LEAST fives times that they were talking about Rose) but you're right, it's...not...fair. And like, the big bad payoff was that he couldn't control the machine anymore because he was a different person, oh no shame on you Doctor, but actually it's okay because of the screwdriver plot device? Whatever. I don't think that's enough to make me dislike it, though. It was fun. And the SONG oh my GOD.

[missnyah]

At some point I think I just went with a "no rules" mindset because I DID keep getting annoyed at the lack of Reapers. I mean, the Doctor walking through the projection to end up in the projection toward the beginning was an AWESOME little film trick. And I spent some time thinking how Abigail and the Doctor were sort of exactly the same to Kazran i.e. every Christmas he was a year older and different and for them it was just a progression of hours. Here, Kazran was Reinette.

The fog fish were very pretty and my favorite thing might have been the Doctor wondering how anyone could ever get bored. But at the end I couldn't help wondering in this new, adjusted timeline, how the hell was the sky being controlled? If Kazran's dad didn't program it for him there had to have been YEARS when no one could run the machine, no?

[jenrose1]

I don't know why everyone is so convinced that touching causes reapers. The reapers showed up long before Rose touched baby Rose, it was just the energy release from the blinovich limitation that let them into the church.

But yeah, that still bugged me, and no, this didn't feel like "the rules" to me.

[papilio_luna]

I think I've just resigned myself to the fact that Doctor Who is just going to be The Girl in the Fireplace Who Blinks in the Library for a few years and that's fine I guess.

But I've at this point said it a million times so I'll just say it once more: going back in personal timelines isn't "allowed" because it breaks the plot. If they can come up for some way to have this keep happening in a way that won't lead to me constantly going, "Well, he can just go back in the timeline and fixing person/thing/race/problem and then throwing them in the TARDIS and showing them the future" then okay. I guess. But right now, it's breaking any ability to have any real plot conflict that can't be solved instantly and in the same exact way every time.

[professor_spork]

AMEN. It makes the TARDIS the hero. The TARDIS is not the hero; the Doctor is. It's not about the tools he has-- the TARDIS or the sonic or the psychic paper. And when it becomes about that, it's not Doctor Who.

[johnmayergirl23]

Sorry Gambon. Willow you ain't.\
I DIED OF LAUGHTER WHEN HE SAID THAT

I almost always go with "Rules Don't Matter During Christmas" mentality. It's easier that way.

[_thirty2flavors]

Do you want to hear MORE THOUGHTS ON MOFFAT? I BET YOU DO

I think a lot of my issues with Moffat's writing boil down to the fact that I don't ever get a clear reading of what he wants me to think. I know authorial intent is a huge source of wank in fandom (lol especially Harry Potter fandom) and I know there are lots of people who will claim backwards and forwards that what the author was attempting doesn't matter; I know there are lots of people who actually like being able to read whatever they want into the text. But for me, it makes it harder for me to connect to or analyze. I like having some sense of what I think the author was aiming for, because that's what allows me to determine whether or not they failed in that regard

[professor_spork]

WORD. A THOUSAND GALLONS OF WORD.

[papilio_luna]

AND ANOTHER SEVERAL BUCKETS OF WORD ON TOP OF IT.

I find that I really like authors who have a very strong personal vision. It's those same authors who tend to be very divisive, for that exact reason, becuase it does make it harder to ignore or handwave their intent as it's dripping off the page/out of the screen in giant gobs, but... I like that. I like a really strong, unique voice with a clear theme or message that is being presented. I can make up my own mind about whether I agree with that message or am interested in that theme, but I feel that that's what art should strive to be. Otherwise, it's just entertainment and not worth putting any thought into.

Edited because I think "message" is a poor choice of words because I can do without preachy or didactic stuff. I think a better term for what I'm trying to express is "central idea."

[_thirty2flavors]

Yeah I think I agree with this. I like knowing what a narrative is trying to say, whether or not I agree with it. When I feel like I can read basically anything I want into most of the content, it's harder for me to care that much. I don't (think that I) project much, so characters that appeal to others because they're "easier to relate to" tend to come across to me as dull or boring or flat. I don't really want to think there are five different interpretations of each scene that are equally valid because the text never delves any deeper. I want to feel like the author had some idea what they were going for when they wrote it.

But then I've seen people say that they love Moffat's stuff because you "have to work for it", or whatever, whereas I guess they find RTD's stuff too sledgehammery. So it's just a matter of persona taste. But large chunks of Moffat's style are not my personal taste.