Things to look forward to

[selenak]

I'll be in London for the Easter holidays, which will include the chance to see some great British dames - two on the stage (Judi Dench and Helen Mirren) and the rest in real life. :) *waves at kathyh, kangeiko and rozk* This unfortunately means no annual Easter Wells post, as they don't have those in England. However, I will try to make up for it with stage reports and possibly some snowy London photos.

Depressingly, every time I visit London I notice more bookstores have closed, so I expect there will be more of that this time, too, but the theatre can always be relied upon. Also, Doctor Who is about to return to the screen, which I'm mostly looking forward to, although the just released webisode prequel made me have this reaction precisely . (Seriously, Moff, three, four times if you count R-as-M in a row is way too often and not clever but unimaginative.) But I had liked the first half of season 7 more than the two previous Moffat seasons (as seasons: s5 and s6 suffered for me from the same "this is a horrible and important thing, but only in arc episodes and otherwise we'll just forget about it" syndrome and some ooc behaviour from the Doctor to make that possible; as far as individual episodes are concerned, both s5 and s6 had some gems, too), and I'm really intrigued by the new companion, so, as I said: I'm mostly looking forward to season 7.5. Something I expect to remain constant: after each episode is broadcast, I'll read positive reviews that will make me wonder why I can't see that wonder of deep storytelling and see a talented, improvised mess instead, and then I'll read bashing reviews which will make me think "hang on, this is really unfair, such and such was great and this and that endearing, and weren't you just looking for stuff to hate?".

Also: I'm only occasionally reading interviews of the DW actors - it depends on the people, i.e. I read and listend to a lot that David Tennant and Catherine Tate did, because they were hilarious together off screen as well, but I never read a single Billie Piper interview and the only one with Karen G. I read was about her role in We'll Take Manhattan, not about DW. But as accident would have it I read a recent one by Jenna-Louise Coleman and in it she mentioned her favourite current show is Breaking Bad. Clearly a woman of taste. :)

Comments

[kalypso]

Will probably miss you - I'm due to be in London briefly on April 6 and then April 9-11. But meanwhile I was just about to write to ask if you'd come across this short item on Paul McCartney visiting Delia Derbyshire.

[selenak]

I did, and squeed to naraht about the real life crossover of interests. :)

Also, yes, I'll be flying back to Munich on April 1st (and that's no joke), so alas we'll miss each other.

[muccamukk]

Probably peace out on Dr Who this year. I think I'm at the point where I would just be looking for things to hate.

[selenak]

Then it's wisest to quit. I did that with three shows when I lost the love and was only encountering maddening (to me) things - Heroes, Dexter and Fringe - and didn't regret it. It allowed me to in time remember more of the joy I had when still following them than the bitterness of the departure, and it freed my time for things I actually like.

[jesuswasbatman]

I said on someone else's journal today that I think Moffat's repeated introduction of companions as children is an attempt to get the child audience more involved, given that you couldn't get away with having an actual child as companion, especially given the post-2005 iron rule that all companion departures must be hugely traumatic

I am also wondering if the Doctor might be talking about River there instead of Amy.

[selenak]

Children: maybe, and incidentally, he writes children well, that's not the part I have a problem with. It's that whatever his intentions, the repetiveness still grates.

the post-2005 iron rule that all companion departures must be hugely traumatic

Um, Moffat is the show runner. He could therefore let the companions depart in any manner he wishes. I very much doubt there is someone in the upper hierarchies of the BBC telling him "oh, and if the companion happily goes their way, you'll be fired!" Also, he's perfectly capable of writing non traumatic departures - for example, if Amy's and Rory's exit in late s6 had been permanent, it would have happened partly after they went through a lot (not that we were allowed to actually see them react to different memory sets and loss of child, umph), but it would not have been on hostile terms with the Doctor, and he could have visited them now and then over the years. But he deliberately chose not to. The ending he did give them was actually a happy one for Amy and Rory themselves (if not for Amy's just once brought back and never mentioned again parents, her also never mentioned again aunt and Brian), which is one reason why the Doctor's behavior in the Christmas special felt so unwarranted.

I wouldn't have liked it in any case because surely post One quitting world saving and helping people is something the Doctor shouldn't and didn't do. (Shades of Peter Parker in Spiderman II, grrr. ) But I liked it even less under these circumstances. However, I do like your River theory, which would help reconcile me to the big flaw in what otherwise is actually my favourite of the Moffatian Christmas specials - if the Trickster did a Sarah Jane/Andrea on River, it would take the Doctor to a different emotional situation.

[jesuswasbatman]

Oh, I meant "iron rule" as something that RTD introduced and Moffat seems to have bought into as well, not something imposed by the BBC

[selenak]

I repeat: Moffat is the show runner. Who has proven himself entirely capable of making his own decisions and chuck RTD storylines he didn't like or considered over and done with. It's not like he got hypnotized upon Rusty's departure.

I don't mean to come across as snippy or cranky: it's just that, well, I've seen you credit the Moff with doing good stuff without saying he did it because RTD (or any previous past show runner) did it first. Why not give the man claim and credit for both the good and the bad of his own show run instead of ascribing the bad to some "iron rule" of sinisterly Welsh origin? Surely you wouldn't excuse Rusty's companion departure angst fests by some assumed youthful imprint on Tegan leaving and Adric getting killed?

[jesuswasbatman]

No I think for both of them it's a disease of hardcore fan writers - building the Doctor up to the point that they literally can't imagine someone finding better things to do than travel with him.

[selenak]

You make a good point. It's really a case of the fans running the show, and it is a mixed blessing.

[legionseagle]

That's an argument I made on twitter yesterday, re including children because it's a children's show (and Moffat can't have overlooked the success of SJA, too). I can see the point that it's getting a bit repetitive but I definitely disagreed with the person on twitter yesterday who was arguing that introducing a character as a child was symptomatic of Moffat's women issues (I doubt the power differential between 19 and 900 is dramatically different than that between eight and 900) and hinted at paedophilia.

[selenak]

I was wondering how soon it would be before someone plays the paedophilia card. Oh fandom, ever reliable. Now, I did find the repetition annoying, hence this post, but good grief, if you need biographical reasons why the man writes children, how about the fact he has them?

And you know, he writes them quite well, and I can totally see this as an attempt (especially now that SJA is no more) to play to the original audience, but he could do that without repeating this specific (self created) trope. I mean, the second Craig episode had him including a baby as a main character and making that work. And every one of his three Christmas specials includes children as important characters (yet none of those children is a Companion). So basically: he can include children without repeating himself about the Doctor meeting the Companion as a child.

[legionseagle]

If Easter Wells is what I think it is, we've got similar in specific parts of the UK, largely Derbyshire, but a little later in the year - more like Whitsun than Easter.

[selenak]

My annual Easter Wells pic spams. And here is one example on an Easter Well:

[weewarrior]

Have fun in London!

Doctor Who: I'm usually not remarking much on the obvious and less obvious Moffat problems - nor his strengths, for that matter - for various reasons, really, but this whole deal of "the (female) companion must be the most specialest and intriguing and mysterious person in the whole wide world to be interesting to the Doctor (and by extension the viewer?)" has been grating for a while. It was okay with River in the beginning, because there seemed to be actual substance behind it, and Reinette did have her own, very complex life aside from the Doctor, but both Amy and now Clara are in danger of being reduced to puzzles the Doctor is supposed to solve, and I find that neither a very interesting interpretation of the companion role, nor all that entertaining as a character. I think aside from the gender aspect (which I find irritating), it's something that has a lot to do with age and experience - I believe, readily, that Alex Kingston has many interesting secrets and depths, but I don't really believe it of Jenna-Louise Coleman, nor did I ever believe it of Karen Gillan.

(ETA: lest this sounds like I think Coleman or Gillan are shallow, that's not what I mean, least of all because I obviously don't know them. But both of them being so young, I find it hard to believe their characters are anything but the youthful explorers - which they also are, and which should actually be enough, I think?)

[cadenzamuse]

If you're going to see "Peter and Alice," I'm interested to hear what you thought of it, as I saw it last week as well. Would love to compare notes.

[selenak]

I'll certainly post on it!