ed_rex

Miracle Day's third episode marks another step on the road towards a fully-engaging story, but still with some mis-steps, awkwards steps and hints of dumbing-down for the new (yes, American) audience along the way.

Despite those cavils, a lot more seemed to happen in "Dead of Night" than in both of its predecessors put together, an important thing for a program that is trying to do tripple duty as a mystery, a science fiction thriller and a social satire.

Unfortunately, too much of what happens feels as if it was inserted according to Russell T Davies initial plans, rather than growing organically out of the characters and the action.

For thoughts on the good and the bad, the Bechdel Test and the long-awaited man-sex, click here (possibly not safe for work).

This is the way my fandom ends ...

There comes a point when intentions don't matter, but only results. Now six 45-minute episodes into his second series in charge of Doctor Who, Steven Moffat has this year given us precisely one (count it, one!) episode that was entertaining in and of itself and that didn't insult our intelligence.

I'm not an uberfan — I don't read novelizations or write fanfic — but I've watched a lot of episodes, in black and white and in colour, some of a lot more than once. And I can't recall seeing as consistent a stretch of bad writing, slip-shod plotting and ludicrous mis-characterizations as that which Moffat's run has so far provided us.

The fault this time out isn't Moffat's missing moral compass (see my reviews of the recent Christmas special or this series' two-part opener for my thoughts on that score) but just the remarkable shoddiness of the product.

After being teased into hoping for something better by Neil Gaiman's expert workshop in the fine art of story-telling a couple of weeks ago, "The Rebel Flesh" and "Almost People" (hereafter referred to as "Almost Rebels"), returns us to the inconsistent characterizations and nonsensical plots that have been the Mark of Moffat.

Now I can't bring myself to believe that Steven Moffat actually hates Doctor Who, but the on-screen results of his stewardship make that hypothesis as evidentially plausible as that which posits that he just doesn't understand the fundamentals of story-telling. (It shouldn't need saying, but for the record, I do know Moffat didn't write these episodes — direct responsibility rests with Matthew Graham, from whose keyboard came what was arguably the weakest episode of Series 2, "Fear Her". But Moffat is the show-runner and so ultimately responsible for what appears on our screens.

And what we do see once again leaves us — the viewers, the fans — with two choices. We can ignore the idiot plot in favour of speculations about the none-too-subtle clues About! Future! Episodes! or we can do the hard, unhappy work of picking apart the lousy construct.

(Yes, we could also turn off the set and go for a walk, or catch up as-yet unwatched episodes of Treme, but we are fans; walking away is not something we're willing to do, not yet.

So let's talk a bit about the basics of story-telling (again). Let's talk about such niceties as consistent characterization and internal logic as if they matter — even when slumming in the bastard field of children's science fiction.

(Why yes, I am kind of pissed off. There's cussing and spoilers both behind the link.)

The divorce is on hold

Finally. Finally! FINALLY!

Finally, a well-written episode of Doctor Who again. Finally, a plot without major holes. Finally, characters who ... stay in character. Finally, complications and surprises that neither reek of, nor hint at, a cheat. And finally, an emotional climax that warrants the tears it asks for.

"The Doctor's Wife" is probably not, as I've already seen suggested more than once, the best stand-alone episode of the revived "Doctor Who", but it is a very good one and certainly the best episode — stand-alone or otherwise — since "The Waters of Mars" and maybe before.

I know, I know: it's shocking. As a friend of mine said elsewhere, I "actually liked an episode? ZOMG!"

Click here for the full review (with not many spoilers) at Edifice Rex Online.

Doctor Who or Doctor Doom?

The real problem with Steven Moffat

I fear I'm becoming One of Them, one of those strange and hideous trolls, shuffling about in the dark passageways of fandom, who seem to exist only to tear down that which they claim to love. You know the one: I've watched every episode of New Who and I've hated every bloody one of them!

Well, I'm now one-sixth of the way through Steven Moffat's second series at the helm of this venerable franchise, and I'm coming more and more to resemble that monstrous beast, The Fan Who Hates His (or Her) Fandom.

The accusation's been tossed at me before, but not, I think, with even a smidgeon of truth. So far.

Though it's no secret I haven't been any too pleased with Steven Moffat's reign as Who's show-runner so far, the fact that his was the mind behind episodes like "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances" and "Blink" gave me good reason to hope for better things to come.

But now, having viewed the opening story of his second series, and coming after the morally idiotic Christmas special, my hope is dwindling fast.

Like a bungling time-traveller, Moffat seems to be working backwards. Starting as a writer of the morally complex, spiritually uplifting and yet also frightening (and even very funny!) tour de force that was "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances", his decline sees him shedding even the facade of a moral stance in favour of a puzzle. A puzzle whose solution is, er, genocide.

Read more? Spoilers and a hell of a lot of negativity at Edifice Rex Online.

Collateral Damage: The Problem With Steven Moffat

There are (at least) two kinds of cheating common in the writing of popular fiction. One is when a plot doesn't make sense, where an apparently intricate tapestry is revealed to be only a bunch of holes where the logic fell through; another is when a story's human logic is lacking, when long-established characters betray their readers' or viewers' previous experience of them.

25 minutes into the 2010 Doctor Who Christmas Special, "A Christmas Carol", I was having a wonderful time, and thinking that the Steven Moffat I'd once loved — the Steven Moffat who gave us the intricate yet humane chills of "Blink" and "The Doctor Dances — had come back to us at last.

But still, I had misgivings, and by the 30 minute mark, they had re-emerged full-blown. The Steven Moffat who concocted last season's "crack in the universe" story-line, and who had first shown his true colours with the popular but hollow and inhumane "The Girl in the Fireplace" was still in charge.

Moffat can be an excellent writer, whose plots are complex and who can create intriguing and believable characters with a few deft strokes of the auctorial keyboard. But as a dramatist, he has one honking big flaw, and it takes centre stage here. "A Christmas Carol" is a grand, meticulously-constructed romp, but a romp with a monstrous emptiness at its fairy-tale heart.

My full review is at Edifice Rex Online. Minor plot spoilers ahead, but unless you've never heard of Charles Dickens, not too many.

Return to story

After last week's appalling display of auctorial onanism, writer Gareth Roberts brought The Sarah Jane Adventures back down to (an empty) earth with a welcome return to story as priority one.

"The Empty Planet" won't go down in history as a great Sarah Jane serial, but it should stand out as a good one, with a nice balance between adventure and character development and not too bad a let-down between the cliff-hanging end of Part One and the anti-climactic drop to the ground in Part Two.

This week's episode's set-up is given away by the title, "The Empty Earth". After Mr. Smith notes a mysterious alien energy signal the previous night, Clyde and Rani awake (alone, you 'shippers! Roberts plays with the sexual tension that's developing between Clyde and Rani, but this is still a children's adventure program (thank god!) and not a children's soap opera) to find themselves inhabiting an empty city, apparently the only people left in the entire world (well, in the Bannerman Road neighbourhood, anyway; but in context of the Whoniverse, their deduction isn't too presumptuous).

The last humans on earth ... read the full review at Edifice Rex Online.

'Look, it's a long story, okay, but we haven't got time now. 'Cause Androvax is after us and so are the men in black. Oh, and if we don't get a move on, the worlds' going to end." — Just another day on Bannerman Road

Second week a bit of a let-down from the series' opener, but an entertaining enough entry nevertheless. I was also struck at just how unusual it is to watch a television adventure program that doesn't include a single white male in a heroic role. Review of sorts on my web-site, but it's a short one. Click on if you will.

Thanksgiving 2010: In praise of an older woman:

The Sarah Jane Adventures returns!

For the past three years, the BBC has been producing what must be one of the best "children's television" adventure programs in the world. I'm tempted to call it a "family drama" or some other euphemism because — much as it pains me to admit the truth — I am a few years decades past any claim to being a child, but The Sarah Jane Adventures is broadcast on C(hildren's)BBC, and even a cursory glance at its website reveals that it is being marketed to ... kids. Full-stop.

And yet ... And yet, I am looking forward to its fourth season with what is a frankly childlike — maybe even childish — sense of excitement, despite last year's third series, even if last year's third series wasn't, quite, as much fun as were the first 24 half-hour episodes.

And fun is the operative word here. So far, The Sarah Jane Adventures have captured the feel of its progenitor, Doctor Who, arguably better than the revivified original itself.

As befits a spin-off, The Sarah Jane Adventures isn't saddled by an enormous and fanatical (and extremely vocal) fan-base and so, I suspect (though I'm sure Russel T Davies & Co. would hotly dispute my hypothesis), that its writers and producers are not suffering quite the same pressure to make it BIGGER and BETTER than it was last time out.

Which ironically gives them a better chance to produce more of the sort of stories that made it so bloody good the first and second (and, partially, third) times around. Instead of worrying (even if subconsciously) what fandom and the blogosphere are going to say moments after a program airs, they can, with clean hands and composure, concentrate on telling stories.

Yes, I'm going on about the importance of story again; yes, it's a recurring theme; and yes, it's bound to pop up again here, probably sooner than later.

If that's okay with you, click here to read the full article at Edifice Rex Online.

It's 17:39 Eastern time.

• Looks like the Habs have had it and I don't have the strength to pretend my cheers can make a difference.


• I'm about to release a critical analysis of the movies, Kick-Ass and Chloe. Perhaps surprisingly, there are parallels to be drawn. And also, it will give me my first legitimate chance to post photos of bare breasts on Edifice Rex Online. But click tomorrow, not now;


• "The Hungry Earth" is far and away the best Doctor Who episode of the season; maybe going all the way back to "Turn Left" (which I know, wasn't really even a part one of two). Here's hoping we get even a decend follow-up;


• Raven comes home on Monday. That makes up for everything bad and lays extra goodness on every dream of happiness.

Edit @ 2306 hours Eastern time: Turns out I fell victim to either Google or my browser personalizing my results. Thanks to (or should that read "thanks"?) Livejournal's mijopo for pointing out my nakedness. Ah well, my unexpected fame was fun while it lasted.

Non-plussed (but frankly rather pleased)

Doing the narcissistic statistical analysis of recent hits at Edifice Rex Online led me to follow a link to a Google search of the phrase doctor who flesh and stone (no quotation marks).

Apparently, my thoughts on the venerable program are more popular than those of a major British newspaper.

More than a little to my amazement, my review of the episode showed up on the number two spot at google.com, while The Guardian's came in at number three. (Google.ca had me at the same position, but The Guardian was in 10th spot.

Seems a little difficult to believe that my humble organ's pensés on Doctor Who are out-polling those of one of Britain's major newspapers, but Google wouldn't lie to me, would it?

I really think it's about time publishers started sending me ARCs.

Cross-posted from Edifice Rex Online.