Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 8:33:44 GMT
It's an interesting discussion. I'd argue the season itself was a bit radical in places and massively conservative in others with very facile right-on attitudes but that's fine as it's almost a soft-reboot. It's The Doctor herself that was massively safe for me to the point of almost losing my interest between seasons. I hope that's just playing it centrist for the first year to get over the "controversial" casting of Jodie and she can get some characterisation more deserving of her talents going forward. You know what I'd love to see, a bit more of what we saw in The Witchfinders. I still really enjoy the conversation she has with King James about secrets. To him, it's this game, a fantasy, like a playactor on one of Messr Shakespeare's stages . He's the hero, in control, and the Doctor's willing to humour him... to a point. I love how that whole scene's played. "True knowledge has to be earned. Tell you what. I'll trade you my wand for answers to as many questions as you want to ask." It's very Faustian and there's this lovely sense that Thirteen's holding back. Not with brawn, but with mettle. Her mind. She's only still there because she wants to see what kind of a man this king is. It would be easy to frighten him witless, escape too, but she's much more focussed on understanding why thirty-six people had to die.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,666
|
Post by shutupbanks on Nov 3, 2019 10:12:54 GMT
I really enjoyed Season 11. I didn't enjoy every episode but then I haven't ever enjoyed every episode of a season (not even in the Classical era!). On the whole, though, it felt like a show that was trying a spot of reinvention, as every show does if it doesn't want to become repetitive. In a lot of ways it felt like Season 2: new Doctor, irritating catchphrases and gurning, overuse of the sonic screwdriver and loads of speeches about how useless weapons are (I mean, compare 10's reaction to seeing K9 in School Reunion and 13's reaction to the Kerblam Man and you'll see what I mean). It felt like the difference between Seasons 17 and 18: the same show but a new crew producing it with some fresh ideas.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Nov 3, 2019 14:36:35 GMT
I think Season 11 did a lot of brave things, and I certainly didn't get bored. I certainly think that it seemed to be trying to make its stock in trade out of going some new places rather than leaning on formulas. It's remarkable that it kept me so entertained for that many episodes that I didn't develop complaints about the lack of classic adversaries, which I think has to be one of the boldest things that it did. The only real low point for me was Arachnids, where even though I thought the political commentary was very commendable, it just wasn't really able to make anything new out of such a well-worn sci-fi trope.
There were probably a few false steps which I don't think is anything new and certainly not a deal-breaker, but even though I started the season really worried that the plot was going to end up more lost than ever, only two or three episodes in I generally felt a lot more confident that the show knows where it wants to go than I did the previous several seasons, and looked forward to each upcoming episode a lot more because of that.
I don't quite want to say that I think the season took risks and then made up for it by playing it extra safe somewhere else to balance it out, more like I think it was well balanced for going out on a limb often enough without rubbing everyone's nose in the fact it was doing so, like it was rebooting because change is good and not because everything that came before needed to go.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Nov 5, 2019 11:12:11 GMT
Too safe... Mmn, I think Series 11 was a pretty bold break from what had come before in the same way that, say, Jon Pertwee's first season was. If you put Season 6 and 7 back-to-back, Pat Troughton's last year had The Mind Robber for its second serial; Pertwee's first had The Silurians. We went from an era where the Doctor was facing off against a unicorn and Medusa to the Brigadier worried that one of his men has accidentally shot an amateur potholer and a supporting character letting his ego actively accelerate an epidemic that's killing people in central London. The shift goes further than that, and it's a point I hadn't gone in much detail on before. In the editorial, and his earlier review of Witchfinders, Stu brings up the idea that, as Who is so culturual ubiquitous a property, surely everyone knows what a Doctor Who story looks like and thus, why do you need to restate said templates?
Not a bad question, necessarily, but it does highlight that fan v casual blinders issue I mentioned in the OP. How can you be sure everyone watching a new era, be it Season 7 or Series 11, has watched before, much less heard of the programme? Even old jokes about the million corridors and screaming girls in miniskirts don't apply to the new incarnation of the show. Obviously some, there is a baseline, but looking at the shift in figures in both examples: there were a lot of new eyes. And of coruse, not forgetting, kids. For them, this is their first exposure to these tropes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 12:56:44 GMT
Too safe... Mmn, I think Series 11 was a pretty bold break from what had come before in the same way that, say, Jon Pertwee's first season was. If you put Season 6 and 7 back-to-back, Pat Troughton's last year had The Mind Robber for its second serial; Pertwee's first had The Silurians. We went from an era where the Doctor was facing off against a unicorn and Medusa to the Brigadier worried that one of his men has accidentally shot an amateur potholer and a supporting character letting his ego actively accelerate an epidemic that's killing people in central London. The shift goes further than that, and it's a point I hadn't gone in much detail on before. In the editorial, and his earlier review of Witchfinders, Stu brings up the idea that, as Who is so culturual ubiquitous a property, surely everyone knows what a Doctor Who story looks like and thus, why do you need to restate said templates? Not a bad question, necessarily, but it does highlight that fan v casual blinders issue I mentioned in the OP. How can you be sure everyone watching a new era, be it Season 7 or Series 11, has watched before, much less heard of the programme? Even old jokes about the million corridors and screaming girls in miniskirts don't apply to the new incarnation of the show. Obviously some, there is a baseline, but looking at the shift in figures in both examples: there were a lot of new eyes. And of coruse, not forgetting, kids. For them, this is their first exposure to these tropes.
That was the thing I rather enjoyed about The Ghost Monument. Barring a more modern aesthetic and the benefit of location shooting, it's a ye olde Terry Nation script. No different in tone to something like The Keys of Marinus. On the surface of it, there's nothing that overtly screams Doctor Who. It's not a prequel, sequel or tapping into preexisting lore (beyond Venusian aikido and a touch of redecorating), but there's still a fundamental spark that says it belongs. 54 years difference and there's still a connection. I think, in this case, it's more than a restating of a mission statement. For us longtimers, it's been a fundamental dissection of what we consider the show to be. Given it's been around for over five decades now, there are a lot of differing views on what exactly constitutes Doctor Who. Can you sum it up in The Daleks? City of Death? Snakedance? The Stolen Earth? World Enough and Time? We have to remember just how long some authors' shadows are. It's difficult to imagine the struggle to maintain history without John Lucarotti or hideous Gothic body horror without Robert Holmes. Both of whom, while gone, still maintain powerful voices in what constitutes a Doctor Who story. The tenants they put down still remain viable to modern-day audiences, who'd happily pick up The Elite from 2011 for the same reasons they would The Caves of Androzani from 1985 .Stories that don't factor into the wider conversation of media die and, with more than 50 years under its wing, it was natural that Who took a look at its now vast, multifaceted self-identity. The templates may not change, but our reactions to them frequently do. The historical is booming now, who'd have thought it was once considered a dead subgenre? Hence, why it's good to reconnect with these fundamental touchstones. Old needn't mean bad and understanding how we interpret media is just as important as the media itself. You take it all apart, see how it works and put it back together again. This time with knowledge of how to make it even better than before.
|
|
|
Post by pazzer on Nov 9, 2019 20:11:56 GMT
Going into Series 11 it felt like it was taking lots of risks. Female Doctor, no returning monsters, 3 companions one older and one with medical condition. Plus the lack of spoilers before series aired.
I was the most excited I've been about Who for a while and even if an episode was a miss for me I still looked forward to the next weeks. Not safe as such but it did seem to dial back on the risks it was taking. Ryans dyspraxia didn't seem to get mentioned after episode 2, Rosa would have worked better as pure historical and thirteen was just generic Doctor.
|
|