|
Post by omega on Mar 12, 2017 10:20:17 GMT
Companion characterisation and continuity (as well as if that continuity was drawn upon) could be hit and miss. Generally for most companions, usually outside the Fourth Doctor era, the companion was unique in their first story, but became generic companion in terms of their role in the plot when a regular character. Steven being a space pilot wasn't really used for his later stories.
The 80's companions were a low point for companion characterisation. There was potential in how Adric could have dealt with the Doctor's regeneration from Tom Baker into Peter Davison, but he got stuck with petulant teenager. It could have been a good character arc for him and the Doctor. At least he was played by an actual teenager. Nyssa was usually in the background unless the plot needed her to have a doppelganger or to wander a ship in a state of undress. There was mileage in Turlough being a wildcard, but after Enlightenment he spent most of the time in the background looking shifty for no reason. Peri's botany skills were important only once, in Mark of the Rani. Mel the exercise fanatic and computer programmer barely got near a computer. All these things and more were addressed to some degree by the novels and Big Finish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 10:26:13 GMT
*scratches brow* You can interpret it as a fairly adult morality play about the Cold War. Unless people can forgive the old hurt, there will never be another way. Battlefield did something very similar with the Doctor and Morgaine's confrontation at the centre of that missile convoy. Both are very different in their approaches, Warriors is more show and Battlefield is more tell. Each are effective in their own way and I think it's easier to pick on a story with poor production values rather than say Resurrection of the Daleks which has a far higher body count (and Daleks) or even an audio production like Project: Lazarus or Creatures of Beauty.
Life isn't always fair. The Doctor doesn't always succeed, sometimes he fails and the consequences are awful. That's part of what makes the character so interesting. More so because much like the original Captain Scarlet series which echoes this same string of failures, our heroes are still there. They're still trying even faced with this kind tragedy again and again and again. He still tried to save those on Sarn, he still tried to save Peri, he refused to die on the warm console room floor. Despite everything, he is still the Doctor and that's a really powerful drive for a character to have. Empowered by their own failures and the injustice of the worlds around them. All the intentions in the world can't change something if people just feel it doesn't work for them. Fair enough that the novelisation is better, but that's extraneous to the televised serial. They're seperate entities, and said serial was rewritten tons of times before a frame was shot. It's like the read the book to understand the movie argument. I'm confused, what does the novelisation have to do with what I was talking about?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 10:31:28 GMT
Companion characterisation and continuity (as well as if that continuity was drawn upon) could be hit and miss. Generally for most companions, usually outside the Fourth Doctor era, the companion was unique in their first story, but became generic companion in terms of their role in the plot when a regular character. Steven being a space pilot wasn't really used for his later stories. The 80's companions were a low point for companion characterisation. There was potential in how Adric could have dealt with the Doctor's regeneration from Tom Baker into Peter Davison, but he got stuck with petulant teenager. It could have been a good character arc for him and the Doctor. At least he was played by an actual teenager. Nyssa was usually in the background unless the plot needed her to have a doppelganger or to wander a ship in a state of undress. There was mileage in Turlough being a wildcard, but after Enlightenment he spent most of the time in the background looking shifty for no reason. Peri's botany skills were important only once, in Mark of the Rani. Mel the exercise fanatic and computer programmer barely got near a computer. All these things and more were addressed to some degree by the novels and Big Finish. That's actually a good point. I think Mary Tamm made a similar argument about Romana transforming from this Avengers girl figure to the standard companion role about halfway through the season. A companion's uniqueness was often underused towards the latter half of the show, I think Ace may have been the first since possibly Leela where her background was put front and centre (ironically without overshadowing the Doctor's own importance).
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Mar 12, 2017 10:36:20 GMT
Rubber costumes - a given, no other technology was available if you wanted 'organic' monsters. But sometimes they were excellent - the Zygons and the Sea Devils. Wobbly sets - the ONLY story that really stands out as 'wobbly set' territory for me is 'The Invisible Enemy' with four or five conspicous wobbles, which I noticed because normally the sets DON'T wobble. (And that season the budget problems were severe, with inflation around 20% destroying their budget as they worked.) Why would the sets wobble? There were a certain number of painted backcloth walls but most of those sets were solidly built by the same BBC teams who did Z Cars, The Classic Serial, etc., etc. Do people talk about sets on those shows wobbling? I don't think so - 'wobbly sets' is a meme for 'classic Doctor Who was rubbish'. (And I don't need to give my views on THAT view!) I think it was the great Barry Letts who said on one of the DVD commentaries that as producer, he would not have tolerated wobbly sets. (Wobble over, better now...!) Point is, it's an existant criticism of the old show, and not acknowledging it would be dishonest. Not many sets wobbled!
|
|
|
Post by omega on Mar 12, 2017 10:45:17 GMT
Companion characterisation and continuity (as well as if that continuity was drawn upon) could be hit and miss. Generally for most companions, usually outside the Fourth Doctor era, the companion was unique in their first story, but became generic companion in terms of their role in the plot when a regular character. Steven being a space pilot wasn't really used for his later stories. The 80's companions were a low point for companion characterisation. There was potential in how Adric could have dealt with the Doctor's regeneration from Tom Baker into Peter Davison, but he got stuck with petulant teenager. It could have been a good character arc for him and the Doctor. At least he was played by an actual teenager. Nyssa was usually in the background unless the plot needed her to have a doppelganger or to wander a ship in a state of undress. There was mileage in Turlough being a wildcard, but after Enlightenment he spent most of the time in the background looking shifty for no reason. Peri's botany skills were important only once, in Mark of the Rani. Mel the exercise fanatic and computer programmer barely got near a computer. All these things and more were addressed to some degree by the novels and Big Finish. That's actually a good point. I think Mary Tamm made a similar argument about Romana transforming from this Avengers girl figure to the standard companion role about halfway through the season. A companion's uniqueness was often underused towards the latter half of the show, I think Ace may have been the first since possibly Leela where her background was put front and centre (ironically without overshadowing the Doctor's own importance). When Lalla took over the role of Romana a lot of her relationship with Tom at the time of filming informed how the Doctor and Romana interacted, leading to very much to the old married couple vibe. While they had their good moments they also had their bad, when they couldn't even look each other in the eye. Thank goodness for the usual plot strategy of splitting the Doctor and companion up. However Romana would still get written as generic, albeit more intelligent, companion. Fortunately Big Finish are a lot more attentive to characterisation, and in the second Fourth Doctor season wrote Romana I more like how she was initially. Andrew Cartmel came at the right time. Between him, Ian Briggs (writer of Dragonfire and Curse of Fenric) and Marc Platt (writer of Ghost Light), as well as the other writers at the time, Ace came off far more a three dimensional person than the companion had been for a while. She had emotional depth, she had fears, she was distinguishable in the stories that she appeared in. It didn't hurt she was the first companion in a long time to be given a proper character arc. Arguably Jo would have been the last person to receive one having emotionally grown up since first going all ham-fisted bun vendor in her first appearance.
|
|
|
Post by kalendorf on Mar 12, 2017 10:55:57 GMT
I'm not ashamed to hate it. It's not as if it's a particularly good-natured story. Infact I'd argue the script is every bit as mean-spirited as anything the critical fans have ever said about it. *scratches brow* You can interpret it as a fairly adult morality play about the Cold War. Unless people can forgive the old hurt, there will never be another way. Battlefield did something very similar with the Doctor and Morgaine's confrontation at the centre of that missile convoy. Both are very different in their approaches, Warriors is more show and Battlefield is more tell. Was the Cold War about an old hurt or grievance? I always got the impression the hostility was an entirely ideological one. America and Russia had (belatedly) fought on the same side in World War II, and yet when it was over, they immediately became enemies without a stray shot having been fired. Mainly it seemed to be about Roosevelt's successor, Harry Truman being an opportunist, stirring up anti-red hysteria as part of his presidential election USP, and from thenon it was about land-grabs, and America wanting to maintain economic deals with other countries, and not wanting them to fall under the incompatible communist economic system. There was probably initially some noble idea that they were saving those countries from Communist expansion and dictatorship, but that gave way quickly to America propping up proxy dictators that were just as evil as Stalin, to ruthlessly put down any possibility of socialist or communist revolution. I mean you could say Russia had a grievance because of the heavy blood they'd shed in the pushback against Germany and Japan, only to be snubbed as an enemy by their former allies, but Stalin had such contempt for his own soldiers I don't think he really cared, and the Russian public rallying around him was more based on fear of his rule and the cult of personality he engineered, than any anti-western sentiments. The Korean War was the one time American and Soviet soldiers actually were killing each other on the battlefield, but there were still periods where there was a detante of hostilities since. Arguably the most unforgivable thing we did to the Russians was help prop up and train the Mujaheddin terrorists in Afghanistan who would later become Al Qaeda, but committed evil atrocities against the Russian soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan. But far from holding a grudge and keeping the hostilities flamed, the Cold War was pretty much over at the end of that decade. What I see Warriors of the Deep more is the Silurians representing any other genocidal militia, of the kind we've seen in Rwanda and more recently Syria, who just want to exterminate an entire bloodline of people because of some 'ancient grudge' they hold against that race, and Hitler invoked similar ancient grudges to justify killing the Jews. I don't think it's a question then of forgiving the old hurt, or expecting any kind of forgiveness or reason to be possible when dealing with such murderous maniacs. And it leaves a foul aftertaste that the Doctor here outright endorses the idea that the Silurian genocidal militia is 'noble' and their 'ancient grudge' justification for wiping mankind out, is a legitimate one, and worse he seems to think the targeted humans don't have the right to defend themselves against the Silurians' genocidal intent. As if to say the only way they can redeem themselves is to die peacefully, because fighting back will just prove them to be the violent savages the Silurians think them. I don't get the sense he's interested in healing any grudges the Silurians have because he has such contempt for mankind himself here. I've always felt that the production faults with Warriors of the Deep were an irrelevant side issue distraction to the far more fundamental problems with it, which really stem from the fact that it's a needless sequel and retelling of a story that's been told better before. But on the other hand I do think it'd be possible to forgive the story's production flaws if the story itself wasn't so impenetrably po-faced and wasn't itself unforgiving and condemnatory. I can't think of a single thing about the story that shows or enfosters any good will. It has a very low view of the audience's intellect, a spiteful view of humanity and human nature, and a contemptful ignorance of the Doctor's character. I've never really been a fan of Resurrection of the Daleks, I've always seen it as an unpleasant display of violent sound and fury, with maybe a few redeeming scenes in it. As a production, I'm surprised it's let off, given its badly acted death scenes, and lack of any post-production lazer effects. I honestly think Horns of Nimon as a production trumps it. I've not heard Project Lazarus, but I have heard Creatures of Beauty which I really liked because it had a real humanism to it. It had a beating heart. I've never gotten the impression Warriors of the Deep has one, despite its moment of overwrought sentimentality at the end. The problem is, that's really nothing groundbreaking. The Doctor has always been fallible, there's always been stories where he didn't save everyone, or sometimes didn't even win (Genesis of the Daleks, The Sea Devils, Inferno episode 6). But part of that fallibility is seeing how he learns from it, and how his fallible moments are part of what gives him wisdom. Warriors of the Deep, it seems to me, would have the viewer believe the Doctor never learned a single damn thing from his past mistakes, by having him act so stubbornly on such a hopeless cause that it's almost as if every past victory of his is suddenly framed as being akin to a broken clock happening to be right twice a day. The problem is I don't feel he was trying here. Certainly not concerning saving the lives of the humans. He seemed to think it more ethical to refuse to act against the enemy until they'd killed every last man. For me it goes beyond him being fallible here, or damaged goods, or even outright unfit for purpose. He was actually quite craven about hiding from the humans the means to defend themselves and repel the invaders all along (and remains unrepentant about doing so right to the end), and refused to entrust them with the right to ensure their own survival, and because of that, none of them survived, by the Doctor's own deliberate choice, because he considered the Silurian/Sea Devil death squad to deserve preserving far more than their massacred victims. Those above examples you cite of the Fifth Doctor caring enough to save as many as he can in his last two adventures, would make a lot more sense if Warriors of the Deep didn't exist to show a side of the Doctor that was utterly inimical to the human desire to survive.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Mar 12, 2017 11:37:53 GMT
Rubber costumes - a given, no other technology was available if you wanted 'organic' monsters. But sometimes they were excellent - the Zygons and the Sea Devils. Wobbly sets - the ONLY story that really stands out as 'wobbly set' territory for me is 'The Invisible Enemy' with four or five conspicous wobbles, which I noticed because normally the sets DON'T wobble. (And that season the budget problems were severe, with inflation around 20% destroying their budget as they worked.) Why would the sets wobble? There were a certain number of painted backcloth walls but most of those sets were solidly built by the same BBC teams who did Z Cars, The Classic Serial, etc., etc. Do people talk about sets on those shows wobbling? I don't think so - 'wobbly sets' is a meme for 'classic Doctor Who was rubbish'. (And I don't need to give my views on THAT view!) I think it was the great Barry Letts who said on one of the DVD commentaries that as producer, he would not have tolerated wobbly sets. (Wobble over, better now...!) Point is, it's an existant criticism of the old show, and not acknowledging it would be dishonest. Very true, I acknowledge the criticism exists, but I think it's an inaccurate, sweeping criticism (like 'bad acting') made by those hostile to Classic Who or who have never seriously watched it*. There were examples of set wobbles and (especially later) a very few actors in minor roles who weren't that good, but these were rare exceptions in a show full of talent, which pushed its budgets and technology to the very edge and usually did so in style. (*And of course I know that no such person would ever be found on DU. Just for clarity, my post wasn't criticising the OP at all.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 11:46:45 GMT
Arguably the most unforgivable thing we did to the Russians was help prop up and train the Mujaheddin terrorists in Afghanistan who would later become Al Qaeda, but committed evil atrocities against the Russian soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan. But far from holding a grudge and keeping the hostilities flamed, the Cold War was pretty much over at the end of that decade. What I see Warriors of the Deep more is the Silurians representing any other genocidal militia, of the kind we've seen in Rwanda and more recently Syria, who just want to exterminate an entire bloodline of people because of some 'ancient grudge' they hold against that race, and Hitler invoked similar ancient grudges to justify killing the Jews. I don't think it's a question then of forgiving the old hurt, or expecting any kind of forgiveness or reason to be possible when dealing with such murderous maniacs. And it leaves a foul aftertaste that the Doctor here outright endorses the idea that the Silurian genocidal militia is 'noble' and their 'ancient grudge' justification for wiping mankind out, is a legitimate one, and worse he seems to think the targeted humans don't have the right to defend themselves against the Silurians' genocidal intent. As if to say the only way they can redeem themselves is to die peacefully, because fighting back will just prove them to be the violent savages the Silurians think them. I don't get the sense he's interested in healing any grudges the Silurians have because he has such contempt for mankind himself here. Warriors of the Deep, it seems to me, would have the viewer believe the Doctor never learned a single damn thing from his past mistakes, by having him act so stubbornly on such a hopeless cause that it's almost as if every past victory of his is suddenly framed as being akin to a broken clock happening to be right twice a day. The problem is I don't feel he was trying here. Certainly not concerning saving the lives of the humans. He seemed to think it more ethical to refuse to act against the enemy until they'd killed every last man. For me it goes beyond him being fallible here, or damaged goods, or even outright unfit for purpose. He was actually quite craven about hiding from the humans the means to defend themselves and repel the invaders all along (and remains unrepentant about doing so right to the end), and refused to entrust them with the right to ensure their own survival, and because of that, none of them survived, by the Doctor's own deliberate choice, because he considered the Silurian/Sea Devil death squad to deserve preserving far more than their massacred victims. Those above examples you cite of the Fifth Doctor caring enough to save as many as he can in his last two adventures, would make a lot more sense if Warriors of the Deep didn't exist to show a side of the Doctor that was utterly inimical to the human desire to survive. Oh, I'd say that entirely depends on who you talk to and from what country, I'm willing to bet there are nations where all the changed were the colour of the uniforms. Sadly. Well, here we get into the complex question of does a government represent the wants of its people? Look at the divide in your own country at the moment, if they were to seize control of a nuclear missile base in the Balkans on the behalf of the American people with the intent to wipe out Beijing, would there be a unanimous people behind them or would the situation be a great deal more complicated? It's entirely possible, almost highly likely, that the Triad are acting on their own initiative without consulting those beneath them. The story also goes some way to justifying the Doctor's attitude towards his favourite species in this particular period of history with Nilson and Solow continuing their mission in spite of the threat to the base, showing that there is no love lost between these two sides. They even go so far as to kill an ensign because she got in the way, burn out Maddox's mind when he attempts to interfere and Nilson dismisses the Silurian threat believing his own side (the "right" side) to be capable of wiping them all out with ease. You can dismiss this as bad taste if you wish, but it still nevertheless reinforces the underlying themes of the story and the questionable morality of everyone involved. Not the Doctor, not Vorshak, not Ichtar, no one is objectively right here. Another thing to consider is that first contact with the Silurian battlecruiser is made with the commander opening fire without attempting any sort of hail despite the Doctor's warnings to the contrary that Seabase Four has no means of defence. The Silurians do not assault the base as would first be expected and the Doctor again warns Vorshak not to send personnel down to the airlock. They have the means to partition off the base, so why not lower the bulkheads instead? Prevent the Myrka (as it turns out) from harming anyone by giving it something solid to thrash and smash at. Buying them more time to gather information rather than just tossing lives away on a threat they know nothing about and have been given intelligence to avoid, something any leader should at least consider when entering an armed conflict. The Doctor goes down to the airlock to reason with them at risk to his own life and with the commander's second, Bulic, literally holding a gun to his head. Again, when the Myrka attacks, he tells everyone to leave the airlock again despite the risk to his life and Tegan's. Once he's freed and it looks as though there is no means of negotiation, he immediately sets to work on a plan to deal with the Myrka. Accomplishing this task, he's not given any time to think as Tegan is taken hostage by Nilson leading to their confrontation with Sauvix who again doesn't immediately kill him on sight like the blindly shooting spy. Leading him back to the bridge and to a confrontation with the Triad (in "Part Four", mind) that overturns his views. This all seems well in keeping with the Doctor's character and demonstrates a far less cowardly attitude than one might initially suggest.
|
|
|
Post by Whovitt on Mar 12, 2017 11:53:57 GMT
So we've done plenty of raking with NuWho, but now let's get to the sins of the original series. And for the sake of interesting discussion, no, you cannot select wobbly sets and rubber costumes. That's far, far too easy and obvious. Wobbly sets - the ONLY story that really stands out as 'wobbly set' territory for me is 'The Invisible Enemy' with four or five conspicous wobbles, which I noticed because normally the sets DON'T wobble. (And that season the budget problems were severe, with inflation around 20% destroying their budget as they worked.) Maybe you should look back on Invasion of the Dinosaurs - when the Doctor's walking round the corridors and the bulkheads are coming down, I don't think there is a single surface on set that isn't shifting violently in some direction
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 12, 2017 12:10:33 GMT
All the intentions in the world can't change something if people just feel it doesn't work for them. Fair enough that the novelisation is better, but that's extraneous to the televised serial. They're seperate entities, and said serial was rewritten tons of times before a frame was shot. It's like the read the book to understand the movie argument. I'm confused, what does the novelisation have to do with what I was talking about? I was refering to your discussion about how the novelisation showed Warriors greater potential.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 12:15:22 GMT
I'm confused, what does the novelisation have to do with what I was talking about? I was refering to your discussion about how the novelisation showed Warriors greater potential. Oh. Oh, fair enough. Yeah, if it doesn't work for you, then it doesn't work. That's how taste works after all. I can provide arguments and counterarguments all day long, but the only person that can ultimately change your mind is you. Personally, I'd have liked to have seen Warriors moved forward as Sixie's debut story. The Doctor's rather flighty attitude with the reactor fits his erratic post-regenerative self quite well. The ending would likely have been a little more upbeat in many respects, maybe even highlighting that there may be hope yet.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Mar 12, 2017 12:22:02 GMT
Wobbly sets - the ONLY story that really stands out as 'wobbly set' territory for me is 'The Invisible Enemy' with four or five conspicous wobbles, which I noticed because normally the sets DON'T wobble. (And that season the budget problems were severe, with inflation around 20% destroying their budget as they worked.) Maybe you should look back on Invasion of the Dinosaurs - when the Doctor's walking round the corridors and the bulkheads are coming down, I don't think there is a single surface on set that isn't shifting violently in some direction Probably more to do with Health and Safety! Wouldn't be good to kill off your leading man!
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Mar 12, 2017 12:24:44 GMT
Re. 'Warriors of the Deep', the central weakness for me is the idea that somehow humanity (in the specific person of the Brigadier, though he isn't named) was to blame for the Silurians justifed wrath by being aggressive to them, first.
This is a misreading of 'The Silurians'. After some brief skirmishes, the Old Silurian did want peace with humans but he was murdered by his own people because of that. The Young Silurian and his chief scientist then attempted genocide, twice, first with a lethal pandemic virus and then by destroying the Ozone Layer. Only the Doctor was able to stop them.
What would their third attempt have been? After their old reformist leader was overthrown, the Silurian colony of Wenley Moor was ruled by reptilian Nazis and the Brigadier was absolutely right to do what he did to protect humanity.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Mar 12, 2017 12:30:49 GMT
Re. 'Warriors of the Deep', the central weakness for me is the idea that somehow humanity (in the specific person of the Brigadier, though he isn't named) was to blame for the Silurians justifed wrath by being aggressive to them, first. This is a misreading of 'The Silurians'. After some brief skirmishes, the Old Silurian did want peace with humans but he was murdered by his own people because of that. The Young Silurian and his chief scientist then attempted genocide, twice, first with a lethal pandemic virus and then by destroying the Ozone Layer. Only the Doctor was able to stop them. What would their third attempt have been? After their old reformist leader was overthrown, the Silurian colony of Wenley Moor was ruled by reptilian Nazis and the Brigadier was absolutely right to do what he did to protect humanity. The Wenley Moor indicent may have nothing to do with events of Warriors of the Deep. There was bound to be more than one colony!
|
|
|
Post by kalendorf on Mar 12, 2017 12:36:38 GMT
Re. 'Warriors of the Deep', the central weakness for me is the idea that somehow humanity (in the specific person of the Brigadier, though he isn't named) was to blame for the Silurians justifed wrath by being aggressive to them, first. This is a misreading of 'The Silurians'. After some brief skirmishes, the Old Silurian did want peace with humans but he was murdered by his own people because of that. The Young Silurian and his chief scientist then attempted genocide, twice, first with a lethal pandemic virus and then by destroying the Ozone Layer. Only the Doctor was able to stop them. What would their third attempt have been? After their old reformist leader was overthrown, the Silurian colony of Wenley Moor was ruled by reptilian Nazis and the Brigadier was absolutely right to do what he did to protect humanity. I agree to a point but perhaps it wasn't quite so simple. The moral issue I think was that the Brigadier's actions also killed the sleeping civilians of the Silurian race who were completely innocent and ignorant of the murderous coup and genocidal actions that were taking place whilst they slept. Also, the Brigadier by that point had mortally wounded the genocidal younger leader, and the Doctor hoped that without his poisonous influence, the Silurians could be persuaded to go along with their older leaders' original intentions of peaceful co-existence (even the surviving scientist who concocted the plague seemed to have been somewhat threatened and coerced into it by his leader), and that a controlled, slow revival would mean that each Silurian awoken would have others of their own people already persuaded, urging them that peaceful co-existence can work and the humans can be trusted. The problem with Warriors of the Deep, unfortunately is that it does validate the Brigadier's position that if given a chance they would not be open to reason and would simply try to wipe us out again, and that the Doctor would only care about the risk of this prospect when it was nearly too late.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 12:43:44 GMT
Re. 'Warriors of the Deep', the central weakness for me is the idea that somehow humanity (in the specific person of the Brigadier, though he isn't named) was to blame for the Silurians justifed wrath by being aggressive to them, first. This is a misreading of 'The Silurians'. After some brief skirmishes, the Old Silurian did want peace with humans but he was murdered by his own people because of that. The Young Silurian and his chief scientist then attempted genocide, twice, first with a lethal pandemic virus and then by destroying the Ozone Layer. Only the Doctor was able to stop them. What would their third attempt have been? After their old reformist leader was overthrown, the Silurian colony of Wenley Moor was ruled by reptilian Nazis and the Brigadier was absolutely right to do what he did to protect humanity. I agree to a point but it wasn't quite so simple. The moral issue I think was that the Brigadier's actions also killed the sleeping civilians of the Silurian race who were completely innocent and ignorant of the murderous coup and genocidal actions that were taking place whilst they slept. Also, the Brigadier by that point had mortally wounded the genocidal younger leader, and the Doctor hoped that without his poisonous influence, the Silurians could be persuaded to go along with their older leaders' original intentions of peaceful co-existence (even the surviving scientist who concocted the plague seemed to have been somewhat threatened and coerced into it by his leader), and that a controlled, slow revival would mean that each Silurian awoken would have others of their own people already persuaded, urging them that peaceful co-existence can work and the humans can be trusted. The problem with Warriors of the Deep, unfortunately is that it does validate the Brigadier's position that if given a chance they would not be open to reason and would simply try to wipe us out again, and that the Doctor would only care about the risk of this prospect when it was nearly too late. Ah, but isn't that essentially judging a whole race for the actions of a single group? Isn't that a view that is just as militant and xenophobic as those lead by Ichtar?
|
|
|
Post by kalendorf on Mar 12, 2017 13:28:16 GMT
Ah, but isn't that essentially judging a whole race for the actions of a single group? Isn't that a view that is just as militant and xenophobic as those lead by Ichtar? Perhaps, but it's not a view the Brigadier originally went in with. Its a view he partly formed due to the circumstances of the Silurians firstly making themselves known as an unknown quantity, and then becoming increasingly hostile and murderous as things escalated, and was partly ordered to adopt by upper government. The Doctor did have an alternative view that the peaceful approach is the better way which, well, I think it's only poignant that the Brigadier didn't listen because we might have expected given their friendship that he would. The issue however is that view and argument the Doctor had, becomes an argument lost in the Davison story, which does give the Brigadier the winning argument after all. You can argue it's right or wrong but the Doctor's alternative was proven utterly, unsalvagably wrong.
|
|
|
Post by kalendorf on Mar 12, 2017 13:48:22 GMT
Well the British people have frequently in large numbers protested America's pushings for war, and there's been huge protests here recently over Trump's refugee ban, even though I don't really see that as any of our business, and even if it were, why was no-one here protesting the Saudi Monarchy and the other rich Gulf states, for doing the same thing? But yes, one of the problems with Warriors of the Deep, is in its view of humanity, it doesn't seem to stop to actually acknowledge the huge numbers of marchers in the future CND who don't want nuclear war, but who'd be killed nonetheless if the Silurians' successfully enacted their plans. I'd say that's the biggest missed opportunity. When Ictar first revives the sleeping Sea Devils, an entire discussion could've been had where we see the Sea Devils' culture shock and reluctance at being awoken onto an immediate war footing they were never expecting when they first slept, but are now being told to fight and die against a new species they didn't even know about before. We could've seen dissent in their ranks, and it would've both shown dimension and shades of grey to what were otherwise cipher grunts, and been an opportunity for Ictar to fill them, and casual viewers in on the backstory of the Pertwee serials. Well if Nilsen and Solow are despicable because of their embittered loyalty to an enemy side that threatens the sea base, then I fail to see how the Doctor's much better. The story is cynical and misanthropic, and that's the problem. I don't think it is intelligently so, I don't think it's showing nuance or shades of grey (at least not deliberately) I think it has just scrapped any notion of intelligent moral distinction in favour of just assuming the worst in everyone, whilst chiding the humans for not assuming the best in the reptile forces that are determined to kill them. I would argue infact that the behaviour of the Doctor throughout- setting off the base nuclear reactor, then beating up the arresting guards, pointing guns at people, showing seeming contempt for the human collateral caused by the Silurians, and greater praise for them, and yelling at the last human survivors when they suggest defending themselves- all has the effect of making most of the humans here seem in the circumstances to show far more patience and tolerance than most would, and that if they were indeed anything like the violent savages he accuses them of being, he wouldn't have gotten away with half the appalling actions and attitudes he has. Infact moments later, Preston even ends up taking a bullet for him. But again the story doesn't seem to want us to notice or care incase it ruins the spiteful misanthropic narrative about humanity it's trying to force. Not out of kindness or mercy though, quite the opposite. They preserve the base to make use of its greater destructive capabilities. If they had a neutron bomb to hand they'd have probably used it in a trice. What we've seen either side pretty much validates Vorshak's judgement that they were hostile and needed to be destroyed first. There's not really any sense that he's made a narrative mistake, destroyed a chance for peace that existed in the first place, or even exhibited a fatal flaw (if anything he dies because of the Doctor's appeasement, not his own belligerence), but just one more thing the Doctor and we can disapprove of, in seeming willful ignorance of what was coming. Maybe but the problem is this gets grossly, and brazenly overshadowed by the worse blunder of Turlough actively forcing them to reopen the bulkhead to save two people at the cost of endangering everyone else. And this for me is why the story can't afford to have the Doctor fail here. Turlough's decision does cost lives that might've been saved otherwise, but that could be redressed dramatically if we saw that in saving the Doctor, he's saved the base's single hope, and ultimately it's proven that things would've turned out far worse if Turlough hadn't. Instead by the end, almost no-one is saved by the Doctor, and humanity is only saved by someone giving the Doctor a boot up the backside to use the gas. The day is saved in spite of, not because of the Doctor's insistence. I can mostly go with this, except that he must know he could've dispatched the Myrka and ended its murderous rampage far sooner if he'd used Hexacromite gas upon it there and then. Instead he goes to the cumbersome trouble of fixing the ultra light converter to achieve the same end much later. And again I can only put this down to him deliberately hiding the means to end this. I could go with this, and I suspect it's what was meant to happen in the original Byrne script before it got muddled by Levine's demands and Saward's rewrites. But I do think the catharsis after that meeting is completely botched by the awkwardness of those amateur creative parties. As I see it, the Doctor stubbornly won't change his views and still despises anyone who disagrees with them, and his stubbornness is no longer based on a greater hope of a better way but he doesn't seem moved by the fact that the massacre's still going on in the meantime. The problem is, the Doctor is only alive to meet Ictar by means of plot convenience that the Sea Devil that caught him didn't just shoot him on the spot. When he has that kind of guaranteed plot immunity, it feels tacky for him to demand the humans show the same faith and hope not to be killed on the spot. Also his willingness to praise and flatter a genocidal extremist like Ictar, right to the end when he's begging Ictar to save himself because his people apparently will fall apart without warmongering leaders like him, may not be a flattery motivated by fear or cowardice, which one could possibly understand, but seems to be far worse, and frankly far creepier and more chilling because he does so of his own honest volition.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Mar 12, 2017 13:55:02 GMT
The problem is, the Doctor is only alive to meet Ictar by means of plot convenience that the Sea Devil that caught him didn't just shoot him on the spot. When he has that kind of guaranteed plot immunity, it feels tacky for him to demand the humans show the same faith and hope not to be killed on the spot. Which happens in every Doctor Who episode, and every single tv drama and movie !
|
|
|
Post by kalendorf on Mar 12, 2017 14:00:11 GMT
The problem is, the Doctor is only alive to meet Ictar by means of plot convenience that the Sea Devil that caught him didn't just shoot him on the spot. When he has that kind of guaranteed plot immunity, it feels tacky for him to demand the humans show the same faith and hope not to be killed on the spot. Which happens in every Doctor Who episode, and every single tv drama and movie ! So bad writing existing elsewhere justifies all the bad writing in Warriors' script? Yeah, let's have no standards at all.
|
|