There did seem less hype around the Christmas special this year. But maybe it's my sons growing out of it.
Saving Alexander Armstrong/bringing him back to life was the major flaw, imho. It felt like an affront to the families of servicemen killed in action, in WWII and nowadays, who really have had to come to terms with their loss without a Dr Who to make it all better. I'd have preferred the widow and children to have been strengthened and uplifted by their forest-y experience enough to go on without him.
And what is it with Dr Who writers, WWII and mothers and lost children? - I kept thinking of 'Are you my mummy?', the most haunting Dr Who plot ever for me.
Agreed Bill Bailey was under-used, Arabella Weir did more.
I noticed that as well - I wonder whether Downton Abbey managed to outshine it a bit.
Re saving the husband, I suppose this is hardly the first time that an implausible rescue of someone meant to die in the war has been portrayed on screen (I'm thinking of the classic film A Matter of Life and Death now actually!), but I agree completely that it would have been nice to see the grief dealt with instead of making it better magically. Maybe they thought that would be too heavy for Christmas :/
And what is it with Dr Who writers, WWII and mothers and lost children?
I thought saving the father would be a cop out but it was at least pulled off with a degree of logic (by Doctor Who standards). I never thouhgt the Christmas specials that good - just fun. Abner
By Dr Who standards, I guess so! I think the Christmas specials have gone astray a bit generally, apart from The Next Doctor, in terms of satisfying, fun storylines.
The Next Doctor was deffinately the best special (in many ways the Christmas theme was the most muted). I think I personally miss certain aspects of original Doctor Who but my knowledge of this is exclusively book based. Abner
Comments 7
Reply
Reply
There did seem less hype around the Christmas special this year. But maybe it's my sons growing out of it.
Saving Alexander Armstrong/bringing him back to life was the major flaw, imho. It felt like an affront to the families of servicemen killed in action, in WWII and nowadays, who really have had to come to terms with their loss without a Dr Who to make it all better. I'd have preferred the widow and children to have been strengthened and uplifted by their forest-y experience enough to go on without him.
And what is it with Dr Who writers, WWII and mothers and lost children? - I kept thinking of 'Are you my mummy?', the most haunting Dr Who plot ever for me.
Agreed Bill Bailey was under-used, Arabella Weir did more.
Reply
Re saving the husband, I suppose this is hardly the first time that an implausible rescue of someone meant to die in the war has been portrayed on screen (I'm thinking of the classic film A Matter of Life and Death now actually!), but I agree completely that it would have been nice to see the grief dealt with instead of making it better magically. Maybe they thought that would be too heavy for Christmas :/
And what is it with Dr Who writers, WWII and mothers and lost children?
Ah, good point!
Reply
Abner
Reply
Reply
Abner
Reply
Leave a comment