Doctor Who Series 7 Episode 3 Review

So what do you do with a war criminal who’s reformed and is seemingly now applying his skills for the benefit of others. Well apparently that’s not something we should ponder, as people like this are likely to blow themselves up, to avoid the dilemma.

That’s the major issue I have with this episode, the position we take say if we find a Nazi hiding out, is to try them for their crimes regardless of what they’re doing, who their friends now are and how many kittens they save in a year.

The moral message of this episode is undermined by the suicide of the secondary antagonist. This is no doubt a consequence of Toby Whithouse realising that the difficult questions he was asking…err…kinda weren’t difficult to answer.

The concept of the characters arguing over what should happen to this guy, is really weak. The answer is easy; he gets punished for his crimes. But instead of this, Whithouse contrives a way into the plot for him killing himself and avoiding being tried for his crimes in a “heroic” self-sacrifice. But we’ve established as canon, that in the Who universe you only get one life; when it ends, that’s it; there’s nothing.  

I doesn't matter what this guy believed would happen to him if he killed himself, when we know precisely what will happen and that it doesn’t involve being punished.

In order to make any real conflict, the Doctor goes massively off the rails in this episode, I got the impression that they were trying to make him more dangerous and unpredictable, but the whole concept was undermined by how out of character his was. And trying to say, it’s because he’s been travelling “alone for too long” doesn’t count; I’ll take the protagonist’s character development on screen thank you.

Having the Doctor rearrange his personality for the convenience of the plot, in my mind, is a stone’s throw away from him turning up fully regenerated and saying “yeah this happened between episodes.”

Rory is relatively back in character, but as for Amy, so many of the writers have taken liberties with her personality that I have no way of knowing whether anything she says in this episode is in character.

To credit the make up department, the Gunslinger looks pretty badass, but when he starts talking he kind of loses most of his malice. He is at least at far easier to take seriously than that bloody Minotaur he gave us in “The God Complex”.

While this episode is definitely an improvement on last week, there’s nothing particularly great about it. It doesn’t repair the damage of the low quality of “Dinosaurs on a Spaceship” in the same way as “The Doctor’s Wife” did for that truly awful pirate episode.

The plot is exciting enough at the right bits, but, as is his problem, Whithouse doesn't have the eyes for filler and banter, so it drags in between action sequences.

I commend an attempt to use Who as some sort of discussion board for important moral issues, but the one that’s being brought forward here is an old one that we figured out the answer to a long time ago.

Doctor Who Series 7, Episode 2 Review

What a shit episode. I’m next to speechless. 

The Doctor turns up on a spaceship, with a hunter stereotype, an Egyptian stereotype and two people who look like Amy and Rory, but act like who ever the fuck the plot needs them to be.  Oh and Rory’s dad is there too, but only so he can set up a quite literal deus ex machina in the last five minutes.

To add to the woefully bad writing by Chris Chibnall, Saul Metzstien matches the low quality level with some awful directional decisions. if you’re going to film on the TARDIS set, do it from the side where I can’t see a shitload of lighting equipment; kinda damages the suspension of disbelief.

Moffatt should have killed the script for this when it was thrown across his desk (most likely written on the back of a cigarette box or a napkin for all the care that seems to have gone into refining it).

On top of that, there’s a lack of effort across all departments; for example whoever edited this episode, cut out the first part of the word “Doctor” when Solomon is shouting it at the end, making it impossible to take seriously. Big sinister exotics trader and his last words are “TORRRR”.  These are very basic failings.

Amy is in character for a grand total of half a minute and I don’t know who she’s married to now, but it sure as fuck isn’t Rory ; as this guy is more like Mickey or Captain Jack, based on what he says and does.

Nefertiti has nothing to do in this episode, other than be a stereotype  and have sex with another supporting character at the end, who incidentally also has nothing to do, bar shamelessly rip off Jurassic Park at several points. I actually wonder whether the BBC is worried about being sued over this.

No more of my time will be taken up by this episode. It was rubbish. It had a terrible script, a director who didn’t even know which way round to film his sets and a complete abuse of the characters and motivations

Doctor Who: Series 7 Episode 1 Review - SPOILER WARNING

Spoiler warning!!!!! There are spoilers in this review, don't read it if you haven't seen the episode. I don't want anyone whinging about it being ruined for them. This is a spoiler warning.

Moffat’s intention with this episode was to make the Daleks scary again and while I can't say it was a complete success, it was definitely fun to watch.

The Daleks of the Asylum are more nervy than scary; it’s a bit like watching a highly edited version of Alien, with the dark corridors and the general claustrophobic nature of the mise en scene.

The story’s not bad either, a little bit contrived, but far better than any vessel the Davies ever came up with for bringing the Daleks back. The main problems I have with it are ones that seemingly already have a resolution in the mix. Namely, while Amy and Rory are being written out later this year, Moffat has clearly already run out of things to do with them, as evidenced by the fact that he has to have them break up so he can have them fall back in love and not really experience any more development than their two series have already given them.

The revelation that Amy can’t have children any more might be a tad too mature a theme for the vast majority of Who’s fan base and while the supporting character is very good, the revelation about her being a Dalek, living her life out in a dream world, wasn’t really any different from that little girl in the Library being hooked up to the main computer. Moffat is showing a disturbing trend of reusing ideas. It meant that I at least guessed her true nature within minutes.

Incidentally though, this revelation does give Matt Smith a chance to show off some more impressive acting skills, particularly at the point when he says, “but…you are a Dalek” – even though he’s speaking to a friend, he can’t help but keep the hatred from his voice, as he says the final word.

There’s one good Scotland joke in there too, as the Moff seemingly puts down his copy of Writer’s Guide to Bullying Gingers and picks up 100 Ways to Draw Complaints from Scotland.

So there we have it; it’s a good start, didn’t exactly make the Daleks scary for me, but I could see it working better on a younger audience. The revelation about Amy is a bit grown-up and serious for this show and…hold on, the Doctor cured some crazy lady’s brain tumor, with some medicine he had lying around, last series, surely he’s got something that could help with Amy’s problem.

The Dalek girl in her true form was a bit silly and really couldn’t be taken seriously saying her dialogue with Nicholas Briggs’ voice.

Overall, not bad at all. 

Harry Potter Book vs Film

There’s a lot of mixed feelings about the film adaptations of the Harry Potter series; some believe they’re a travesty and others prefer them.

The way I’ve always felt about them is that there are things they do better and things they do worse. For example, I never liked the way that the filmmakers felt the need to give Ron’s more heroic lines to Hermione, in order to make him into the comic relief. As far as the films went, this really stifled his character’s development throughout the series.

But to focus on the most successful of both the book and film series, the Deathly Hallows (love it or hate it) is where these differences either undermine any common sense that was present or make up for bits in the book where…err…any common sense that was present was undermined.

So let’s begin with the positive ones that I liked in the film.

The Ron/Hermione relationship.

This is done better in the film; well not really, but sort of. There’s more time given to developing the relationship in the book, but the circumstances under which they actually have their first kiss are a lot better in the film. To summarize, in the book, Ron suggests making sure that all the House Elves don’t die, which turns Hermione on to no end and in the film, they kiss after being attacked by a dying bit of Voldemort’s soul.

Now the problem with this in the book, is that while what Ron did to instigate their little snog did come after the a lot of other acts and speeches seemingly tailored to impress his future wife, it just comes across as him earning enough brownie points to get a kiss. The film, on the other hand, places them in a situation where death is seemingly imminent and allows them to do (after surviving it) what they had both been wishing they could do before.

This is a far more believable scenario and makes the characters more human and also…kind of gives off the impression that Hermione loves Ron for who he is rather than seemingly requiring him to converge to a number of her opinions before feeling the same way about him as he does about her.

The fate of the Elderwand:

This too is done considerably better in the film. Although Harry seemingly forgets to repair his own wand, making it’s destruction earlier in the film completely pointless, he does destroy the most powerful wand in the world. This makes far more sense than his solution in the book, where he puts it back in Dumbledore’s tomb. This is compounded by the fact that Rowling later revealed that Harry eventually became head of the Auror’s Office and job that would put him in danger of confrontation on a regular basis. Since we established that all you have to do to win the Elderwand is take (against it’s owner’s will) any wand that belongs to that owner, it really doesn’t make sense to leave the thing in existence. Rowling is telling us that Harry is going into a job that involves dueling as a primary skill and that he’s 100% never going to be disarmed or overpowered again. Add to that that Voldemort and Harry collectively told everyone present at the last battle that it was indeed the Elderwand, that’s a lot of people who might want that wand and (courtesy of Harry’s explanation) now know how to get it.

The Neville/Luna relationship.

The existence of a possible relationship between Neville and Luna in the film vs their seeming platonic friendship in the book, just works better. The issue here is that Rowling seemed to be building a relationship between them and then did nothing with it. Then she went further by detailing a future after the book in which they didn’t get together ever. Now that’s all very well, she’s the author and she’s allowed to do whatever she wants with her characters, but closing the characters out the way she did within the actual book just gave the impression that she changed her mind at the last minute about them. 

It also undermines it as an ending to their sub plot stories. Why am I supposed to care about Luna, when I’m told that she went on to marry a man who’s never been in the story and had no development or character to speak of. If this was truly the last in the series, why didn't Rowling just close out their stories by making them get together for simplicity’s sake?

Ok, some stuff that’s done better in the book:

Dumbledore. 

There’s a lot of criticism of the Dumbledore of the seventh book for being massively out of character and a contrivance for the sake of the plot. Respectfully, people who subscribe to this viewpoint, gravely miss the point that Rowling was making. Like Harry using dark magic out of necessity or just when he’s pissed off with Bellatrix or Malfoy, the Dumbledore of book seven is nothing more or less than human. The reason that he was never seen like this before is that he was alive to hide the various pieces of evidence that emerge about his less than admirable past. Further to this, it makes him far more plausible, after all Voldemort had to kill hundreds of people to become the most feared Wizard in the world, it makes sense that Dumbledore would have had to exist at least in the morally grey in order to posses a similar amount of power, knowledge and magical skill.

One particular thing that bothered me about the film’s portrayal of him was in the flashbacks of Snape’s past. In the book, the first meeting in which Snape becomes Dumbledore’s spy sees Dumbledore essentially playing games with Snape’s head, given that at this time Snape “disgusts” him. He throws out various suggestions that Snape turns on Voldemort to save Lily or that he offers him James and Harry on a plate in exchange for sparing her. But these aren’t genuine suggestions, he’s mocking the slippery, manipulative creature that Snape’s become, because quite frankly, he doesn't like him.

The film gives off the impression that Dumbledore wouldn't have attempted to protect Lily, James and Harry, had Snape not agreed to spy for him, which is simply not the case.

Dumbledore also explains himself in the book; the whole sub-plot of Dumbledor’s dead sister and his relationship with Gillard Grindlewald goes completely unexplored in the King’s Cross scene of the film. Dumbledore essentially gets no chance to tell his side of the story , which is essential to well…making him look less like a dick.

There are of course things that both the book and film do pretty badly.

In the film, people, such as Harry, block a fair few “un-blockable” killing curses throughout the final fight scene. I’m on the fence with this one, if the curses were un-blockable then it would have made for some pretty short fight sequences, also Voldemort’s using the Elderwand which supposedly isn’t working for him as he’s not it’s true master. Add to that the fact that he’s aiming the curses at it’s true master (Harry) Voldy’s failure to perform here may be explained.

The killing curse issue does give rise to a pretty significant hole in the book and possibly the film. Voldemort puts a super awesome protection spell around his pet snake to protect it from harm as it holds the last piece of his soul outside his own body. They need the sword of Griffindor to break through and – wait guys just use a killing curse….it’s…you know, un-blockable; no matter what kind of protection is on his pet snake, Avarda Kedavra will go straight through it and you can do it from like the other side of the room  - no need to get within striking distance of the snake or Voldemort himself.

Neville’s speech:

This is cheesy in both the book and film, but more so in the film. In the book at least Neville is Neville, whereas in the film he become generic supporting actor 1, with his monologue that could exist in literally any action/fantasy film ever made.

Malfoys:

I’ve written this one before, but all three of the Malfoys should have ended this series (book and film) serving out long prison sentences for, conspiracy to commit murder, aiding and abetting in kidnap, aiding and abetting in murder, trespass on government property with intention to burglarize, trespass on private property, bribing public officials and acts of terrorism. Neither Rowling nor the film writers seem to acknowledge that a near lifetime of hate crimes and corruption cannot be written off by one self-servient act of helping the good side and a failure to fight for either side in the final battle.

Well this has turned into a nice thing to do while waiting for Doctor Who to return.