Into Submission With My Charm (The Stones of Blood)


No, Doctor, Iain Cuthbertson was two stories ago.
It's October 28, 1978. John Travolta and Olivia Newton John continue to do unspeakable things on Summer Nights and are thus left to sing about them instead. This lasts for three weeks before The Boomtown Rats make it to number one with "Rat Trap," which, given that it's now hit number one, makes me kind of regret that crack implying they were a one hit wonder with "I Don't Like Mondays." The Grease orgy continues lower in the charts with Olivia Newton-John making a solo appearance in the charts. The Jacksons, The Cars, and Public Image Ltd also chart. That said, when crafting the "also chart" sentence I usually limit myself to the top ten, and as we're getting into the period where I actually love huge swaths of stuff going on lower in the charts, I think it's time to inaugurate a sentence about the lower reaches of the charts so I have an excuse to mention The Buzzcocks, The Jam, Blondie, and Elvis Costello, if only to reassure anyone who wasn't convinced by The Cars and Public Image Ltd that these are actually pretty good times for music. Having thusly reassured everyone, Donna Summer also charts with "MacArthur Park," proving that there's no hope at all and that we might as well just elect Margaret Thatcher or something.

In real news, we manage to avoid electing Margaret Thatcher for a bit longer. Instead Dominica gains independence from the UK. Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin win the Nobel Peace Prize, an event that is in part notable because Jimmy Carter does not win it despite brokering that peace, setting up a rare case of an "oops, sorry we forgot about you" Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. (Not that Carter's post-Presidency work was not meritorious, but let's face it - that prize was 1/3 about Carter's post-Presidency, 1/3 about a rebuke to Bush, and 1/3 about the fact that in hindsight he obviously deserved to split the 1978 prize.) Rioters sack the British embassy in Tehran, California voters defeat an initiative to ban gay schoolteachers, and, the day after the final episode of this story airs, the first Take Back the Night march happens in San Francisco. But the big news story happens the day the final episode of this story airs as the Jonestown Massacre happens, resulting in the murder/suicide (we'll leave it ambiguous which victims were which) of a staggering 918 people.

While on television, we should probably go back and note the one thing we didn't mention in the Pirate Planet post (and which I bet someone has already commented on, but I'm writing this before the Pirate Planet post goes up, so who knows) that ITV's failed attempt to poach top BBC talent and compete on Saturdays has been going on. The key event of that is their poaching of Bruce Forsyth, previously host of the BBC's Generation Game, now host of ITV's rather more disastrous Bruce Forsyth's Big Night. This is notable as the second time in the Baker era that ITV has botched an attempt to kill off Doctor Who. Mysteriously the architect of this plan, Michael Grade, would soon be poached by the BBC which will lead to nothing but good things.

But for now, everyone is still watching the BBC, where the first of four and a half Doctor Who stories contributed by David Fisher is on. Fisher is an odd duck. Certainly he got the nightmare brief here. Nobody in their right mind wants to be the script on after Robert Holmes and Douglas Adams. But if someone's got to have the nightmare brief, Fisher is a pretty solid choice. He's a competent writer who had actually been pursued by David Whitaker way back when he was script editor. He knows his science fiction and makes an immediate bid to be considered an old reliable hand. Sadly, he only really has two seasons in that role before John Nathan-Turner makes the only partially sane decision to stop hiring writers from before his time.

All of this is really me dancing around the crux of this story, which is that it is a perfectly competent story that works within the aesthetic and themes that have been set out in the last few stories, but that doesn't really advance them much. Its most creative element is that it checks off one of the boxes for things that this era of Doctor Who would have been remiss not to get around to eventually, which is to turn its tools on Doctor Who's own history. This is, in effect, the story where the Williams era finally takes on the Hinchcliffe era and makes its bid to be considered more interesting than it. It is, in many ways, the Williams era's Terror of the Zygons.

The story's biggest problem is that the first two episodes at times try the viewers patience. In their defense, this is part of the point. First impressions strongly suggest this story is yet another version of the von Danniken horror that was already looking tired last season in Image of the Fendahl. About the best that can be said is that the show is finally doing stone circles, which, while a significant and visible omission in the Hinchcliffe era were more than adequately covered in Children of the Stones, which, as I argued at the time, really should be considered an honorary part of the Hinchcliffe era.

But even within the first two episodes there's hints of what's going to happen. The initial setup makes it fairly clear who the villains are. The first episode is a dead-on execution of the formula for this sort of story, with Professor Rumford and Vivien Fay being the obvious allies and de Vries, the maniacal cult leader, being the obvious villain. Virtually nothing in the first episode even hints that the situation could be anything other than the obvious. It's all competently executed, and with only 25 minutes of it doesn't particularly try the viewer's patience, but there is very little that's remarkable about it either. It hits more or less perfectly the exact balance between being good enough to be fun to watch for one episode, but not good enough to sustain for four. So it's a believable and good start and the audience doesn't have to have any clues that this isn't a business as usual story. In hindsight the only real clue that anything is amiss is how rubbish a villain de Vries is. Given that he is in fact a stooge who gets whacked in the next episode, this is in hindsight telling, but the fact of the matter is that anyone treating bad acting as a sign of a red herring in the Williams era is going to be wrong a lot more often than they're right.

But in the second episode there is, slowly but surely, a massive change in tone. The key scene is de Vries's death. Miles and Wood refer to this sequence as one of the most unintentionally funny parts of the story, and to some extent they're right. Certainly one of the key sources of humor, the astonishing ineffectiveness of the Ogri as monsters, does not appear to be deliberate. Fisher had conceived of the Ogiri as stones that transform into rock men and thus walk around, but director Darrol Blake somewhat unwisely opted to turn them into giant moving stones. The result is difficult to capture in words. This is not because it is terribly hard to describe - they're giant polystyrene rocks that glow urine-yellow as they glide around. Rather it is that the human brain, when faced with that description, isn't quite capable of generating the full and jaw-dropping weirdness of it on its own, tending instead to hedge and assume that it can't be that bad. No. It is. It is pretty much the worst case scenario for giant urine-colored attack rocks.

And yet despite the atrocious nature of the monsters, somehow the scene works, albeit in what is openly a so-bad-it's-good manner. But what's key is that the scene isn't just a camp disaster that can be loved ironically by geeks who want to pretend they're hipsters. Yes, it's that too, but the way in which it jars the viewer out of the narrative actually has a narrative purpose. Given that the scene is already a transgression against the formula - de Vries, who we had taken to be the major human villain and the public face of the Cailleach, seemed sure to last until at least the end of episode three, if not well into episode four - to have him die in such an utterly ludicrous fashion is oddly effective. It makes the scene function exceedingly well for what it is, forcing the audience to sit up and realize that this is not the story they thought it was.

It's here that we should pause and consider thoroughly the views of one of Doctor Who's most prominent critics, Mr. Lawrence Miles. Regular readers of the blog may have detected a certain complete lack of respect for Miles's viewpoints on my part (mingled with a grudging respect for his fiction, which I would find it convenient to hate but utterly fail to even dislike). This is not entirely inaccurate, and his comments on this story are a fairly succinct demonstration of why. Simply put, I think his poetics are on complete crack and that he doesn't actually understand how stories work other than in one narrow sense. So yes, it's time for another one of those bits where I start getting all narratological.

The crux of Miles's complaints about this story are that it's "impossible to relate to." The significance of a living Celtic goddess on Earth is downplayed, the scary bits aren't scary, and the entire idea of the Ogri are ill-conceived. To be fair, none of these three criticisms are wrong as such. The nature of the Cailleach is downplayed, the story isn't very scary (not even the campers scene, much as Tat Wood tries to defend it), and evil rocks that move and suck blood are dumb. No, pointing out all of that isn't where Miles completely gets the wrong end of the stick.

Miles's problem is that he cannot conceive of any narrative logic where those things wouldn't matter. The only way in which he is willing to treat a Doctor Who story is via a model where the most interesting question is "what happens to the Doctor this week?" There's a great moment in the documentary The Mindscape of Alan Moore in which he talks about the progression of his interest in comics, and how as a small boy he was interested in what Superman was doing in a given month, but as he grew up - and by up I mean something in the 10-12 range - he became interested in what the writers were doing. This is a fairly normal progression. Mature readership involves moving beyond just blindly investing in characters and into thinking about the work of fiction as what it is, namely a work of fiction.

This doesn't mean that nobody simply invests in the characters and cares about what happens to them. Obviously that happens, most commonly with children. But the idea that reading should be done more childishly and that more developed and mature approaches are bad things is, I think, prima facie ludicrous. It's not as though reading works of fiction as works of fiction and with active awareness of the use of tropes, conventions, and structure is an emotionless process. After all, Alan Moore shot to the forefront of his field in part because he wrote more emotionally involved comics than anyone else at the time.

But more to the point, understanding long-form serialized media in terms of mere investment in the characters is actively the wrong way to go about it. If someone is a regular Doctor Who viewer, especially in 1978 when the show features virtually no long-term character development whatsoever, then they're not watching it out of investment in the characters. They're watching it because they like Doctor Who-type stories. And this is especially true for children's media, which tends to generate a lot of its pleasure from the ritualized and consistent aspects of it. Part of why the Hinchcliffe era was good children's entertainment where the Hammer films it paid homage to weren't was that even in the Hinchcliffe era there was the basic contract that at the end of the story the Doctor and Sarah were going to be OK. That taken as a premise, all the other scares are permissible. Far from working because the audience is invested in what happens to the Doctor, the series works because the audience doesn't have to worry about the Doctor and can just enjoy watching him.

Which means that even child viewers are more than capable of enjoying a story based on its subversion of expectations. (Anyone disbelieving this needs to go read some picture books. Scads of them are based on subversion of expectations. Idiosyncratically, my go-to example is The Monster at the End of This Book, a delightfully good Sesame Street book that, if you have never read, you really owe it to yourself to track down a copy. There's apparently an iPhone/iPad version.) Sure, they may not go for broad and sweeping postmodernist readings about subversion of past eras of Doctor Who, but even they'll get that the story's got a dummy villain and that it's a surprise when it jumps to a spaceship. And anyway, one of postmodernism's stock techniques is applying childlike logic to adult things. So postmodernism for children is, far from an impossible thing because they supposedly relate to things because they think they're real, actually dead simple. You can have emotionally real relationships with postmodern things. Just ask my ex-wife, much as I'm sure she wishes she hadn't.

And yet Miles inexplicably rejects this entire avenue of reading, insisting that there must be some vaguely defined notion of coherence and suspense for the story to have any resonance, and that the suspense must rest on the idea that something bad could happen to the Doctor. And, I mean, he's not wrong that that's an effective means of suspense. There's a bit of The Leisure Hive that he quite rightly praises to high heaven because it makes a sudden and unexpected turn into putting Baker's Doctor in a position of real vulnerability. But that's not the only way to do it any more than having the Doctor be all emo about Rose is the only way to do emotional storytelling. Just because it works doesn't mean other things don't.

In fact an overwhelming majority of viewers are quite capable of getting invested in the narratology of a story and in trying to outthink the writers. Yes, there have to be other things like characters that are fun to watch, but the Williams era, particularly once it gets the double act of the Doctor and Romana going, has that in spades. If there's one thing that the rise in recent years of procedurals like Bones, Castle, and, yes, Sherlock has shown it's that a good double act and some inventive plot twists really are sufficient to entrance a massive audience. In this regard, the Williams era has aged particularly well - better in many ways even than the Hinchcliffe era. It's perfectly serviceable television by standards thirty years out from when it was made. But even by the standards of its time it works. In a world where Star Wars, Fawlty Towers, and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy all work, this isn't too far ahead of its time.

So this really is a titanically large blind spot for Miles. And it kills the entire Williams era for him. In terms of this story, it causes him to miss a key fact - that the weaknesses of the story are in fact the point. The entire structure of The Stones of Blood is based on the fact that it starts out looking like an extremely familiar story structure then makes an about face and becomes a different story structure all without overstaying its welcome. And, more importantly, it becomes a story structure that's markedly more fun. This is very much a story about the Williams era showing that it has more fun than the Hinchcliffe era ever did, and it just about gets away with it.

The heart of this is the Megara, which are essentially a pair of flying judicial fairy lights who end up putting the Doctor on trial for more or less arbitrary and capricious reasons. This gives Baker an episode's worth of time to do one of the things his Doctor is absolutely best at, which is to browbeat stupid authority figures. And the entire sequence just sings. It's delightful, particularly as the Megara become increasingly frustrated with him. (For my money, the real highlight is that the Doctor has a barrister's wig in his pockets, which is one of the funniest uses of the recurring joke that Baker's Doctor has all manner of bewildering things in his pockets.)

The problem, and it's a significant one, is with the b-story. Not that it's bad. Beatrix Lehmann, in her last television role, lights up the screen as Professor Rumford, and the sequence of her, Romana, and K-9 figuring out what planet Vivien is from via recipe books (a sequence gently appropriated by Russell T. Davies for the Slitheen) is delightful, doubly so if you've caught the lesbian subtext between Rumford and Vivien and can fully appreciate the domestics of it. The only problem is that instead of having them show up just in time to save the day after the Doctor has run out of tricks to delay things they show up after the Doctor has already solved it and proven to the Megara who Vivien is. Which makes the entire sequence pointless. And it's not as though it needed to be. Successfully running rings around the Megara for long enough that Romana and Rumford could solve the mystery would have ben a fine accomplishment for the Doctor. Instead he gets the entire victory and the supporting cast is left irrelevant - a troubling instance of Baker hogging all the oxygen of a story. At this point it's not even something he consciously or rudely does. It's simply how he plays the part. Writing for Baker's Doctor in this era just demands putting him at the center of everything. This - not his lack of vulnerability - is the heart of many of the narrative troubles this era does have. It's not that nothing bad ever happens to Baker, it's that he demands so much of the narrative focus that it's hard for anyone else to get a subplot in.

But this gets at the nature of Romana, which is worth commenting on as she is a uniquely popular companion (though moreso in her next incarnation). Williams - and to his credit, Hinchcliffe moved in this direction as well with Leela - favors companions who are capable of winning audience affection in the same way the Doctor does. Romana is as capable as the Doctor at always finding something to try. (And on the rare occasions that the script gives her nothing to do she at least goes for a decent laugh by looking irritated and like she's stalling for time through scenes and then, when the Doctor inevitably shows up, delivering the line "Oh Doctor" as if relieved that she doesn't have to keep carrying on a conversation with the bore of the party.) It doesn't always work, but it's a savvy choice - so much so that the ability to always find some new thing to try in a situation becomes a mainstay of companions from here on out. Previous companions were often resourceful. But after Romana a good companion is defined by being as irrepressible as the Doctor without being quite as clever. It's just unfortunate that right now she has to be to stand up to the lead's chokehold on the narrative focus. And even still he might marginalize her right out of the plot.

But this defect aside, what we have here is quite charming. A genuinely enjoyable subversion of the by now tired standbys of the Hinchcliffe era that goes into some of the most fun Doctor Who has ever had being anti-authoritarian, and with a new sort of authority figure. We haven't seen the Doctor do the legal system in a while. And another nice step in the larger anti-epic via the Megara. The Megara are, after all, keepers of justice, and what is justice if not the maintaining of fairness and balance? And, of course, the Megara are shown to be ridiculously blinkered and silly, striking another blow against the basic assumptions of the Key to Time.

But there is also an increasingly clear counter-narrative about the Key. Not only has every segment been stolen and, in being stolen, thrown something out of balance and into chaos or confusion, but furthermore there is an increasing theme of the segments being, for lack of a better word (or perhaps just because I really like this word) mercurial. Both the second and third segments have actively had shape-changing powers, and the first segment, more broadly considered, is effectively a tool to cause vast social upheaval. (Unlike the second and third segments, where their theft causes chaos because of the absence of the segment from its proper context, the first segment causes chaos by its presence.) The ethics of this story arc are, in fact, becoming increasingly clear, with the distinct sense that, far from being about the proper balance of forces it's about the need to upend rigid definitions of the world. Not destroy, but challenge and unsettle. And in this regard the ornate structure of The Ribos Operation even reiterates in the structure of the arc. The arc is about the ethical validity of postmodern play that subverts rigid categories. It is told through postmodern narrative techniques even as it defends the philosophical underpinnings of those approaches.

I am beginning to run out of new ways to describe how good this season is thus far.


John Toon 9 years, 1 month ago

Recommended edit: "Fisher", not "Fischer".

Link | Reply

Andrew Hickey 9 years, 1 month ago

I really think you're being too harsh on Miles there. Having read his fiction, stuff like This Town Will Never Let Us Go or Dead Romance is so good, and so unlike the philistine you describe, that I think at worst he has a fixed idea of what a Doctor Who story on TV should be, not a fixed idea of how all stories work.

And your claim that 'The only way in which he is willing to treat a Doctor Who story is via a model where the most interesting question is "what happens to the Doctor this week?"' is just *wrong*. If anything he (assuming it is him and not Wood who wrote the prosecution) thinks the story is *too* obsessed with the Doctor:

"And any sense of there being anything outside the Doctor and Romana's line of sight is almost forgotten... There's no sense of this world even existing. A series which started off being about experience of the unknown, both for the audience and for the Doctor, has now become a series about the POV of two self-involved Time Lords."

Link | Reply

Matthew Celestis 9 years, 1 month ago

I love this story. It's one of my favorites.

Link | Reply

fdfc49e4-466d-11e0-963e-000bcdcb8a73 9 years, 1 month ago

Another recommended edit: "Rumford", not "Rumsford".

And I've been salivating at the prospect of reading your interpretation of one of my favourite non-Hinchcliffe/Holmes Tom Baker stories.

To me, this has always been classic DOCTOR WHO's last gasp at trying to be scary, and when I watched this story as a young 'un, it did scare me, silly rock monsters and all. I think it was because of how the Ogri glided around in precisely the way that giant monoliths *shouldn't*, as well as their silent, implacable, relentless nature -- How can an old woman keep outrunning a creature that never tires like she will??

Personally I would've been disappointed if the Ogri had transformed into humanoid golem-like beings. Somehow, their being stone monoliths AND alive at the same time is infinitely more unsettling to my mindset.

And I can't heap enough praise on Beatrix Lehmann, who is utterly divine as Professor Emilia Rumford. Arguably, she's the first performer that Tom Baker connects with/respects since Elisabeth Sladen's departure, and the chemistry between them is simply wonderful.

Also, she was able to reign in some of Baker's excesses by giving him a disappointed look and softly saying things like, "Oh, you're going to do it like that?", so that rather than pouting and sulking as usual, Baker quietly acquiesced.

And as a final note, Lehmann was a lesbian in real life, which may (or may not) have "bled through" into her performance/interpretation of the script. Just sayin'...

Cheers, JohnH

Link | Reply

Elizabeth Sandifer 9 years, 1 month ago

Both errors now fixed. Thanks.

Link | Reply

fdfc49e4-466d-11e0-963e-000bcdcb8a73 9 years, 1 month ago

You're most welcome, Philip. :)

Also, I half-expected the title of this entry to be, "Oh, look -- rocks!" ;-D

Link | Reply

Grant, the Hipster Dad 9 years, 1 month ago

Recommended edit: The word "chart" appears a whole pile of times in your first paragraph.

Link | Reply

inkdestroyedmybrush 9 years, 1 month ago

and this is where is just about dives off of a cliff for me. Yes, we still have the ridiculous Prisoner of Zenda runaround to go, but far from feeling like the Key to Time season is a triumph, we get stories like Pirate Planet that are, in my mind, to clever for their own good.

Seeing the story as a metaphor for drug addiction or, as i prefer, imperialism as one poster commented, makes it more interesting to discuss, but it is still un-watchable in parts. Poorly filmed and with its bizarre mix of ideas too outside of the director's ability to translate to the screen in terms of tone. All this long held chat about Douglas Adams genius forgets the point that what works on the page often doesn't work on the screen. Look at how difficult it was to get HHGttG on the big screen. Coming to sci-fi post-monty python is not exactly an easy place to be coming from. Your sincerity is worth openly questioning at every step of the game, since you can pull the rug out from under us at any time. If that's the case, why bother involving ourselves in the narrative? Adams is too clever for his own damn good. The mentats in Pirate Planet simply never occupied the same critical space throughout the story.

And so here Williams does a good job of showing us the story and then twisting it, true, but the balance and tone of the show,not to mention the budget, is just about shot. And what appears flat and insincere in the recording session comes across that way on the tv.


Link | Reply

Keith 9 years, 1 month ago

I've always liked this episode. I was under the impression that people tended to like the first part, but hated the Megara bit (I blame the DISCONTINUITY GUIDE for this impression). I found the "horror" aspects of the episode more effective than you did (more for the mood than for actually being scary - I've never found DR WHO scary to begin with). I thought the camper sequence was quite effective, playing out like the pre-credit sequence of an old slasher film, such as the start of the original FRIDAY THE 13th (but with killer rocks).

100% agreement on Beatrix Lehmann as Professor Rumford. She is definitely a highlight of the story. Fantastic performance.

I could not disagree more with your opinion of the Ogri, though I doubt anyone considers them a top-tier alien. As another poster mentioned, what is creepy about them is that they glide around in a way that monoliths *shouldn't*. Though admittedly, you have to get past the question of HOW they move. I fail to see how having them turn into rock men would have really improved things.

The shot where you see one of them pass by the window of De Vries' house on its way to kill him is very eerie, though his exchange with Martha as they're about to be killed is so OTT maudlin that it threatens to derail the whole effort.

To sum the Ogri up as urine-yellow polystyrene rocks seems about as fair as saying the Daleks are crap because they're just mobile pepper pots with egg wisks and toilet plungers who spent nearly 30 years being hamstrung by stairs, despite being galactic conquerors. Besides, I like the yellow glow effect. :)

While the Doctor producing a barrister's wig was amusing, the funniest part for me was when he was about to be sacrificed by De Vries and he suddenly asks "Does your Cailleach ride a bicycle?" which sends De Vries into an apopleptic fit, screaming "A BICYCLE!?"

And on the topic of humour, the bit where the Doctor mentions that the Megara found their creators in contempt of court and blew up the galaxy sounds like a line from THGTTG.

Link | Reply

Iain Coleman 9 years, 1 month ago

Can't say I much like this story, though a lot of that may be down to the poor direction that mars many of this season's stories.

The one bit I do remember enjoying is the Doctor thoroughly taking the piss out of De Vries' deeply held druidic beliefs.

Link | Reply

5tephe 9 years, 1 month ago

Yeah... While this series has always been fun in my opinion, it does start to feel laboured at times. I agree that the Ribos Operation is a wonderful conception and execution, but (despite being a massive Douglas Adams fan) I could never get into the Pirate Planet. It was neither funny enough, nor serious enough. Perhaps this is a limitation of TV that Adams was unused to overcoming, moving from the infinite canvas of the radio play.

And as to this story: watching as a younger boy or man it did not seem so much like the change in direction was a deliberate swerve as just a little bit of a clumsy way to disguise the plot you are telling, or mash together two ideas that might work better separated, if you put more effort in.

I will have to go back and re-watch this series, through your lens, and see if I can get something better out of it. Although I too have my objections to the sudden arrival of two "god" figures for the Time Lords.

And on one last point: you don't count the Master series in Pertwee's time as a Series Arc? It's not as clearly stated at the outset and contiguous as this, but it is definitely (especially in the conception you outlined for having the Master be actually the dark side of the Doctor's personality) an arc, I'd say.

Link | Reply

William Whyte 9 years, 1 month ago

I'm with a lot of the other commenters here: these three stories are easier to like in theory than in practice. Of the three, I liked Stones of Blood best at the time and like Pirate Planet best now: I felt even at the time that Stones of Blood got a bit ... talky once the Megara showed up. Both Stones of Blood and the Pirate Planet, to an extent, rob you of the story you were expecting to see. That's a risky approach, and in retrospect I think it works better for the Pirate Planet, where the twists blindside you first time but in retrospect are clearly an escalation, than for Stones of Blood, where our initial kitschily enjoyable Hammer homage is replaced with an overlong comedy sketch.

But this isn't a review blog.

So let's note, thematically, that all three of these stories have the common element of an alien visit that isn't an invasion. In Ribos, it's an attempt to buy the planet. In Pirate Planet, it's a straightforward obliteration. In Stones, it's someone hiding out. This is the first time we've had that since The Time Warrior, I think (and this observation has just provoked a lengthy comment on your Time Warrior entry which EXPLAINS EVERYTHING). You can look on all of these as an ongoing attempt to work out how to do Doctor Who, which is, after all, a series of stories about visits other than invasions by an alien. Particularly, it fits nicely with the Williams problem of inheriting a massively successful show and being told not to do it like that any more. You can see how those thoughts would have been in the air. On the other hand (although this isn't a review blog) it perhaps illuminates a reason why the Williams era, though highly creative, doesn't have the visceral force of Hinchcliffe: the stakes are at the wrong scale. In Ribos and Stones, it's actually not that big a deal whether the villain gets stopped. In Pirate Planet, the stakes are if anything too high: we don't see the people who get wiped out on Calufrax and I remember rolling my eyes somewhat when the next target was determined to be Earth; even at the age of 10 I saw it as a pretty losery attempt to make everything seem MORE REAL. For all that stories in this season grapple interestingly with questions of order and chaos, it's really only the Armageddon Factor that properly escalates the stakes and gives the impression that things are spinning out of control.

Frankly, almost all of the Key To Time season concepts are actually done better by Keeper of Traken, and that only took four weeks. Every episode 3 cliffhanger in Season 16 should be as good as the episode 3 cliffhanger of Keeper of Traken.

Link | Reply

William Whyte 9 years, 1 month ago

It's also worth saying that David Fisher was perhaps too busy having two scripts in a row to write to realise that he was coming after Robert Holmes and Douglas Adams. Two scripts in a row is the real nightmare brief. And while Fisher was obviously a pro who could fit in with the culture of any program (which is one explanation for why his novelizations are so Adams-y), he's also obviously someone who's deeply in tune with the Williams/Adams approach. So much so that I think that he deserves almost as much credit as Williams and Adams do for the successes of that approach. It's a shame he and Bidmead got off on the wrong foot when Bidmead took all the jokes out of The Leisure Hive because he could otherwise have carried on being a major player.

Saward, of course, clearly hoped for the same relationship with Philip Martin, but ended up getting it with Pip and Jane Baker. Oh *good*.

Link | Reply

William Whyte 9 years, 1 month ago

Three-comment rule!

I would say that Lawrence Miles is basically wrong about a lot of classic Who, but his critiques of RTD-era Who are spot on and necessary. FWIW.

Link | Reply

William Whyte 9 years, 1 month ago

I forgot The Hand of Fear when going through alien non-invasions. You could maybe argue that Talons of Weng-Chiang counts too.

Link | Reply

Alan 9 years ago

Add me to those who thought the Ogri were pretty creepy. For me, they work for the same reason the Daleks do. Scary voices aside, I've always thought that the scariest thing about the Daleks was the way they just glide around silently. I don't think the Daleks would have been as successful if they'd been another humanoid race of aliens staggering around on clumsy legs. The Ogri had the same sort of feel, an unnatural form of movement not seen in nature.

Link | Reply

Henry R. Kujawa 8 years, 9 months ago

It's long amazed me how flexible Tom Baker's Doctor was over the course of 7 seasons. In his 1st year, at times he seemed too incompetent, as if the "act" Patrick Troughton used to put on suddenly became the real thing. He got a bit more serious his 2nd year, but at the same time, it often seemed as if Sarah spent half her time watching out for him, helping him stay out of trouble. When he goes home, without her, sure enough, every move he makes it the wrong one.

Along comes Leela, and suddenly, he has to be more sensible. He's got someone who needs watching out for now... except, she doesn't need watching out for, and she'd be the first one to say so. So unexpectedly, they almost become equals, despite their vast differences.

And then Romana arrives. She's like the reverse of Leela. Stylish, classy, lovely, brilliant... and hopelessly naive. But not for long. But instead of trying to be a guide, suddenly, The Doctor finds himself in a competetion. You have 2 people each trying to prove they know more than the other one. Haven't had that since Zoe! Of course, before long, they begin to develop mutual respect for each other. I sometimes wonder if Mary Tamm didn't jump the gun quitting the show so fast, supposedly on the grounds of her character not having enough to do. Considering the state of almost every other companion in the show's history, the phrase, "Get in line!" somehow seems appropriate. And I did think Romana as a character developed a lot over her 6 stories.

Strangest thing... Baker is probably at his very best in Season 16, the mix of actual competence and outrageous humor. I enjoyed his first 4 seasons (mostly), but I loved this season. And yet, looking back on it this week, I find something crossing my mind that never did before. Which is, I could easily see William Hartnell doing these stories. Can you picture if HIS Doctor ran across Amelia Rumford? There he'd be trying to bring along this young wannabe who's maybe too full of herself, and he runs smack into someone who'd probably remind him of an old friend. Or, himself. I bet HE would have invited Amelia for a trip in the TARDIS at the end (the way The Doctor did with Sarah so often).

I hadn't really noticed or thought about all the dropped and unexplained plot threads until I read all the reviews at the "Page Fillers" site. I suppose it's a triumph of how the story turned out that somehow, you can watch it a dozen times or more (as I have) and not notice the "problems".

Incidentally, early in the story, they discuss how there's 3 circles which have been associated with foretelling the future. One might suppose this has something to do with the 3rd segment, and Vivian's somehow expecting the Doctor to show up before he does.

Oh, yeah... and something else I somehow never noticed before tonight... in the earliest scene in the story, the sacrifice in the circle... you can SEE Vivian's face clearly right at the end of the scene. So when she shows up the next day with Amelia, anyone who was paying attention should have already known she was the leader of cult.

Oh yes--funniest scene, Baker pulls out the wig. My reaction being, "What the HELL is he carrying one of THOSE around for?"

Link | Reply

timelord7202 7 years, 9 months ago

" lesbian subtext "

Where is the lesbian subtext?

I know some people make crude jokes with sausage sandwiches and truncheons, but the bulk of people usually date around their own age. Not 1.5 generations older than themselves or vice-versa.

Granted, it's not inconceivable but - as with many other things - how these two ladies got together (platonic or otherwise) was never addressed. Ditto for why Cessair is handing around Earth in the first place, and why no other Megara went cruising after that prison ship that would not just magically disappear...)

It's still an awesome story, but a lot of motivations are overlooked. Usually in its favor, but not always.

Link | Reply

David Gerard 7 years, 1 month ago

I remember enjoying this story at the time ... but:

"they're giant polystyrene rocks that glow urine-yellow as they glide around. Rather it is that the human brain, when faced with that description, isn't quite capable of generating the full and jaw-dropping weirdness of it on its own, tending instead to hedge and assume that it can't be that bad. No. It is. It is pretty much the worst case scenario for giant urine-colored attack rocks."

... is my abiding memory. This is when we really start getting into the battling a foil-covered shoebox era.

Link | Reply

New Comment


required (not published)


Recent Posts





RSS / Atom