You Must Not Allow Yourself to be Trapped Into Looking at It (The Lie of the Land)

(88 comments)

This is not actually a screenshot of the episode, but a candid photograph of Peter Capaldi shortly after recieving the script.

It’s June 3rd, 2017. “Despacito” isn’t going anywhere, but Captain Ska and Jonas Blue are newly in the top ten, while Ed Sheeran, DJ Khaled, and Clean Bandit continue their runs. In news, the US government announces its intention to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, and Arsenal eats Chelsea to win the FA Cup. While on the day this episode airs, Reality Winner is arrested for leaking information about Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election to journalists, and a few hours after it airs, a terrorist attack on London Bridge kills eight people.

On television, meanwhile, we have The Lie of the Land. This is a story that fits smoothly into an important tradition of Doctor Who stories, along with things like The Celestial Toymaker, The Dominators, The Monster of Peladon, Warriors of the Deep, Planet of the Dead, or Nightmare in Silver. Which is to say, fundamentally lazy fuckups at the tail end of otherwise good eras. There are a number of ways to get to this sort of story—Nightmare in Silver, in particular, is bad in ways that are difficult to relate to any generally applicable principle beyond, perhaps, the all too often realized “Cybermen don’t work as a sole villain.” But all of them are united by a sense of creative exhaustion—a feeling that the people in charge are just too tired to put in the effort they might ordinarily to make a bad script into a vaguely acceptable one.

It is interesting, then, how often what goes wrong for these stories includes the political. The Celestial Toymaker, The Dominators, and The Monster of Peladon are to be sure bad for a lot of reasons, but their politics are both undeniably among them and are all weirdly egregious in their awfulness. The other three are less ostentatiously bad in their politics, although Warriors of the Deep certainly has its problems, and I could just have easily decided Journey to the Center of the TARDIS, with its deeply questionable decision to make its team of bumbling thieves all black, was the Matt Smith example of this particular phenomenon. But The Lie of the Land is a despondent return to the early days of Doctor Who, in which the show does not just throw out any poory thought out piece of tedious garbage but a offers a politically noxious poorly thought out piece of tedious garbage. 

The production timeline makes it clear that Whithouse was writing this in response to the rising threat of fascism that Trump represented, doubly so given that it had the Doctor namecheck fascism in his otherwise largely incoherent monologue pretending he really had sided with the monks. But, to make an obvious point, there’s nothing especially fascist about the monks. They’re not a populist and far-right authoritarian program. The mass movement that is in point of fact a central aspect of fascism is utterly absent. So is any sense of xenophobia or racism. Or the deep commitment to a toxically masculine cult of power and virility.

Indeed, ideologically speaking they’re not anything at all: in one of the most bewilderingly stupid decisions in an episode full of bewilderingly stupid decisions, the Monks do not utter a single word and thus do not provide themselves with any clear political content whatsoever. They are just faceless alien conquerers who take over planets and control everybody’s mind for sport. Although even that’s overstating it, in that it implies that there’s some sort of indication the Monks take pleasure in their conquests. Instead they’re a contentless marker—a banal other who have taken over the world and have no traits beyond the fact that they have done so.

In practice this means that Whithouse writes it as Stalinism. But this is pop culture Stalinism as opposed to something rooted in an even cursory and simplified sense of Stalinism as an actual historical phenomenon. The obvious marker here—one Whithouse tossed around in pitching the story—is 1984. But this is Orwell like Extremis is simulationism—a bunch of key markers like state propaganda that aggressively rewrites history and secret police dragging people off to labor camps for acts of disloyalty all joined together in a way that’s aware enough not to miss the point, but still fundamentally far from getting it, as that would once again involve a political engagement that goes beyond “totalitarianism sure seems bad, doesn’t it?” 

In a sense this is good, in that this sort of comprehensively attenuated conception of fascism is so utterly comic book villain that it avoids the most obvious political fuckup that you could make, which is in some way endorsing or romanticizing fascism. Alt-right Doctor Who, for all that the show is naturally geared to resist that impulse, would ultimately be frighteningly easy to make, in the way that fascism is always frighteningly easy to make out of liberalism, and The Lie of the Land goes nowhere near that disaster. But where it goes instead—a power of love ending in which Bill’s memory of her mother provides “a glimpse of freedom” that instantly shatters the hold of the Monks because apparently “a glimpse is all you need”—is desperately unsatisfying in its own right. The most obvious irony—that Bill’s memory of her mother is explicitly imagined and thus “her voice, her smile” are in fact just as much a constructed lie as the Monks’ false history of humanity—is simply ignored. And so we get an appalling notion that the nuclear family is sufficient to stop authoritarianism, which is I’m sure amazing news for all the trans people in the United States who have just lost their right to health care.

But even this constitutes too much actual political engagement for Toby Whithouse, who caps the whole thing off with a shitty “Bill’s mum, you just went viral”… I’d use the word joke here, but that seems like overstating the case. Then he goes on to have the Doctor shout insults at a young woman for her appearance by way of emphasizing that humanity is incapable of learning from its mistakes and will never recognize that “they can overthrow dictators and stuff, they just have to band together.” And then we’re done, having apparently decided that the real magic was all the condescending things we said about the young people who were the most consistently anti-Trump and Brexit voters along the way.

If it sounds like I am angry it’s because I am. The Lie of the Land is a genuinely contemptible piece of television of the sort that I generally just walk away from in disgust, but given my fundamental love of and investment in Doctor Who am instead forced to spend two thousand words analyzing. But since I’ve apparently finally broken the seal and let out the condescending bitchiness, we may as well stop to describe the larger context of soul-deadeningly incompetent storytelling into which these gruesomely glib politics are embedded.

The worst problem with The Lie of the Land is basically the entire first half, which may well be the most jaw-droppingly cynical and condescending opening section of a Doctor Who episode ever. The entire thing, including the whole of the episode’s promotion, hinges on the idea that the Doctor is working for the Monks. For the opening stretch, Bill is the sole POV character, with the episode working towards her confrontation with the Doctor. And when she finally gets there, it appears that the worst is true: he really has fallen under their influence. Their confrontation goes poorly, Bill grabs one of the guards’ guns, and she shoots the Doctor, who begins to regenerate, a sequence showed in numerous trailers for the season. And then all of this turns out to be a feint. The Doctor did the entire thing in order to test whether Bill was under the Monks’ control. It’s certainly not a problem to offer a story that’s about something very different than what’s marketed; Moffat does it all the time. But Moffat offers new stories that serve as critiques of and comments upon the stories he rejects. This is something very different—a marketed premise that’s thrown away with nothing more than a “ha ha only kidding,” in which the Doctor, Nardole, and a room full of men laugh at a woman of color and the audience for ever believing the story in the first place. There’s no commentary here—just a cynical ploy to create an episode hook without having to follow through on its consequences like some Mort Weisinger-era Superman comic. 

And the resulting plot doesn’t even make sense. Why does the Doctor pretend to side with the Monks instead of just getting on with saving the world? He doesn’t gather any useful intelligence or advantage. He never uses their trust for anything. He just dicks around for six months letting people get sent to labor camps so that the BBC can cut a good trailer. Nor is it terribly clear why the Monks are using the Doctor for all their propaganda videos instead of, you know, Oprah Winfrey or Barack Obama or someone people have already heard of and trust. It’s a completely pointless fake-out that accomplishes nothing within the story. 

And from there things just sort of putter around being similarly pointless. Having put Missy on the mantle in Extremis, she has to be used for a Hannibal-derived “get information from the enemy” sequence here, but when he’s given the opportunity to play substantially with one of the shiniest and most delicious toys in 2017 Doctor Who all Whithouse can think to have her do is say random words in Spanish and offer an entirely useless piece of information that Whithouse can’t even be bothered to make use of in the hackneyed and glib conclusion. 

It is difficult to really frame or express how utterly fucking wretched all of this is. It’s not even interesting in its shittiness. It’s just plot points that don’t join up with each other leading towards a resolution that doesn’t actually have anything to say. It’s just bad, embarrassing garbage. Which is, of course, the way of end of era turkeys. This is what Doctor Who looks like when people aren’t trying. 

Well. Sort of. Because there is one very significant way in which The Lie of the Land differs from most of its fellow end of era fuckups, which are generally not just poorly written stories but poorly made ones. Sometimes this is because otherwise reliable directorial hands like Lennie Mayne or Morris Barry come up short (or are sabotaged by their producers, as with Pennant Roberts); other times it’s because they feature untried directors who don’t work out like Bill Sellars or Stephen Woolfenden. But none of those things are what happens with The Lie of the Land, which, in spite of its crushingly pointless script, is given absolutely stunning direction by Wayne Yip. Yip has one of the strangest directoral careers in Doctor Who: he directs this, The Empress of Mars, and Chibnall’s New Year’s special Resolution alongside a pair of Class episodes. It’s one of the least impressive swaths of episodes ever handed to a director, but with the exception of “The Metaphysical Engine, or What Quill Did,” where he was given a script wildly more ambitious than the budget could handle, he’s always acquitted himself with grace. (And even there, the episode has tons of scenes that punch way above their weight.) His direction moves through the settings with meticulous care, making everything feel like an actual place with a spatial logic. And he fills the episode with delightful touches, making the opening montage suitably unsettling and ominous while also relishing the humor of it, and, perhaps most notably, throwing in the delicious TV Movie shoutout of superimposing Michelle Gomez’s eyes over a scene. 

It’s a pity that this, like too many of his contributions to Doctor Who, is still a steaming piece of shit that should never have been made. But as we’ve noted, these sorts of fuckups are common and hard to be too distressed by the existence of beyond the basic irritation of having to sit through a piece of lazy hackery that lacks a firm handle on the idea of being about something. At least this one looks good.

Comments

Camestros Felapton 6 days, 2 hours ago

I can’t think of an episode that was this bad with so few excuses. Nightmare in Silver was more disappointing because of Gaiman, and there have been episodes with worse ethics/politics but this episode was just plain bad.

Link | Reply

Vadron 6 days ago

What I kinda love about "Lie of the Land" as a phenomenon in the ‘Doctor Who’ fandom is that nobody likes it, but everyone has different rationales for disliking it. (I should have expected you would dislike it for being politically clueless to the point of confused blubbering, though I somehow didn't. Personally, I cannot deny that it is in fact politically clueless but I don't particularly care, having never particularly looked for politics in “Who”.)

One thing, though: you write “the Doctor, Nardole, and a room full of men laugh at a woman of color and the audience for ever believing the story in the first place” to describe the 'haha no' moment. I don't think the implied accusation with pointing out that the people in the room are men, and that Bill is black-skinned, is at all fair here, because Bill isn't meant to be read as a *person* in this scene; so the specifics of her identity (gender, skin colour) are irrelevant. There's no point in saying "Bill and the audience"; it is in this instance the same thing, due to Bill having been the POV character. Her 'stupidity' is our own.

Link | Reply

Przemek 5 days, 22 hours ago

The specifics of a character's identity are always important. Imagine a shot of a random act of street violence during a riot. Even if the purpose of the scene is clearly just to show people being violent, it matters greatly whether the shot depicts, say, a black man beating a white woman or vice versa. You personally might not see a difference, but other people most certainly will.

It doesn't matter what the makers of "Lie of the Land" intended: what we actually see on the screen is exactly what Dr. Sandifer described. If you were a casual viewer just flipping through channels, this is what you'd see: a room full of (mostly?) white men laughing at a woman of color. It's not the only thing going on in this scene, but it's one of the things. You can't ignore such a visual in an episode dealing with fascism: a political movement comprised of white men who would really like to put women of color in their place.

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 21 hours ago

The "channel-flipping" hypothesis is fair enough, but other than that, two words for you: Implied Author. To anyone who watches the entire episode, let alone the whole of Series 10, it's obvious that this isn't at all what one is supposed to take away from the scene.

And I said it was "fair enough", but only in the sense of "yes, well done, you have identified a situation where the scene could earnestly be read as insensitive". Not in the sense of convincing me that Whithouse can be blamed for writing the scene. We can't expect writers to not write specific scenes because they might look bad taken ludicrously out-of-context; that way lies madness. It would be easy enough to compile a bunch of clips to make it as though the Daleks are the helpless victims of persecution from the Doctor, say.

Link | Reply

Przemek 5 days, 21 hours ago

Then I have chosen a wrong example because I wasn't talking about taking scenes out of context. I was talking about the importance of the sheer material reality of what's shown on the screen. It adds another layer of context whether one likes it or not because we watch fiction through the lense of our real world experiences. Some viewers may be able to see past that, but many won't be able to. When the people running the show made all three thieves in "Journey to the Center of the TARDIS" black, it carried unfortunate implications despite anyone's intentions and despite what the episode itself was saying. Same with the abortion parallell in "Kill the Moon".

I'm not blaming Whithouse for writing the scene as it is or saying it should be changed. I wasn't offended by it or anything like that. I'm just saying that if the author doesn't want the context there, they should take care to think through the implications of what's being shown on screen.

Link | Reply

Brian B. 5 days, 17 hours ago

I am 100% on Przemek's / El's side regarding the "Lie of the Land" scene, but since the "Kill the Moon" thing keeps coming up, I wanted to point out: no. Any implied parallel to abortion is fine, because if what's going on in "Kill the Moon" is "abortion", it is abortion being performed *without the mother's consent*. Which is a thing fascists have done in history, and which I'm pretty certain we on the Left are firmly against.

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 16 hours ago

Factually, it is without the mother's consent, but the 'mother' is a nonsentient animal, and, for that matter, so's the 'baby'. It's read as an *allegory* for abortion, not a literal story about abortion; hence within the bounds of that interpretation, just as we accept that an unhatched giant space bug be reated a stand-in for an unborn human fetus, we must accept that Clara and the rest of mankind (who the episode repeatedly stretches are "responsible") are equivalent to the 'mother'.

Link | Reply

Lambda 5 days, 5 hours ago

I don't recall their level of sentience being established.

Link | Reply

TomeDeaf 5 days, 4 hours ago

It isn't. Vadron is massively reading that into the ep but it's not there.

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 2 hours ago

Well if we're meant to consider the beast being a person the episode sure doesn't call attention to it. The Doctor seems to describe it as a really big tick. I feel like even absent any concerns about a pro-abortion reading, the Moon-Bug being not an animal but a person would completely change the ethical ramifications of the decision.

(To be clear I don't buy the "abortion metaphor" reading myself; I just acknowledge that the episode *can* in fact unintentionally be read as an anti-abortion metaphor without it being a stretch regarding the text itself.)

Link | Reply

Lambda 5 days, 5 hours ago

On that abortion thing, there's absolutely no reason why a British writer for a British TV show should have to worry about what something looks like through the lens of American politics. America does not legitimately rule the world.

Link | Reply

Daniel Tessier 5 days, 4 hours ago

Abortion isn’t only an American political issue though. Abortion is still illegal in almost all circumstances in Northern Ireland. It doesn’t dominate the media in the same way as in the States but it is still a major issue.

Link | Reply

Przemek 5 days, 4 hours ago

That's true, but surely the writers are aware DW is a global phenomenon now? Abortion is a hot topic in many countries. And anyway, I'm sure at least some people in the UK are divided on the issue as well.

Link | Reply

Lambda 5 days, 4 hours ago

The overseas audience still has to play the role of guests though. The same way I try to avoid criticising all the anime I watch from British or Western perspectives without understanding how it looks in Japan.

The challenge to that point is the forgetting of Northern Ireland.

Link | Reply

TomeDeaf 5 days, 4 hours ago

Indeed. But the same resonances are there in Ireland not just America, and I think it's not unreasonable to say that if Steven Moffat, Brian Minchin and Peter Harness had also had a woman on board as a lead creative figure she might've been like "erm, guys"...

Link | Reply

tachyonspiral 3 days, 17 hours ago

TBF, people in Britain are often more ignorant of Irish history and culture than you might imagine.

Link | Reply

luna 6 days ago

God, it's a fucking shame that the only non-Moffat writer given the opportunity to substantially make use of Missy was Whithouse.

Link | Reply

David Anderson 6 days ago

After two episodes of putting off talking about the Monks arc as an arc, you don't talk about it. Which is entirely appropriate as a response to how the Monks arc doesn't work.

I don't think the iconography in the episode is any more Stalinist than it is fascist: it's just generalised 20th century totalitarian.

Even if there were any merit in the idea of Doctor tricking the companion into thinking he's evil, Bill is the pre-Chibnall new series companion that it's least interesting to do it with. She's the one with the least invested in her relationship with the Doctor.

Link | Reply

Vadron 6 days ago

I dunno, they do feel more Soviet than Nazi to *me*. Perhaps it's the insistence that the Monks are saving and protecting the people, as opposed to an ideology *based* on conquest. Or maybe it's just the basic look of the Monks' world — all gray brutalist architecture with people hurrying down the streets, and gray-clad police instead of clanking-boot soldiers in green. The endless statues, too, are more associated with the U.S.S.R. than they are with the 3d Reich.

Also, the Monks wear red.

Link | Reply

Jayde 5 days, 22 hours ago

"This is something very different—a marketed premise that’s thrown away with nothing more than a “ha ha only kidding,” in which the Doctor, Nardole, and a room full of men laugh at a woman of color and the audience for ever believing the story in the first place."

Aaargh! I had forgotten how much actual physical pain the episode gave me. The 12th Doctor was written as the worst, toxic character in this episode. Bill's admiration and love for the Doctor just seems so lopsided after this episode .... including in the coda in the end where he tells her she is one in a billion (after making fun of a woman's physical characteristics when he calls a young woman- appalling hair. Yes! The same Doctor who could not see age in Clara and saw beauty, where social norms did not, in multiple stories before, including Erica in the previous episode). HOW could he let his companion suffer under a brutal dictatorship all ALONE for six months (she never had family or friends) as he made an army with totally random strangers! And then laughing at Bill, a young black woman who has struggled all through, with these random soldiers? (At least Nardole seemed to have some regret.) Why, oh why, could they not have had Bill show real *anger* at the Doctor!!!

Bill continues to trust him implicitly, in WEAT, when she asks him to make sure she doesn't get killed in before she goes on the jaunt with Missy, even as she is reluctant. Then she gets subconsciously brainwashed by the Doctor to wait for him instead of fighting and trying to escape for 10 years. And then again, she is shown as not being allowed to get angry (since when is anger a LUXURY for people like her- isn't that all we have?). And at the end of it, Moffat shows that the Doctor is unable to do anything for her and the person who actually has her back is Heather. If not for LOTL, the problems with WEAT and TDF as regards Bill would not (probably) appear so flagrant.

I have wondered (after reading similar arguments wrt S11) on my more uncharitable days (which usually happens after I think of LOTL) if Moffat deliberately supported the LOTL script to have this underlying arc where a parachuting alien is actually quite ineffectual (and sometimes awful and even guilty of perpetrating the same oppression) in remedying things for people like Bill. In the following episodes, Empress and Eater, the Doctor again takes a backseat to Bill and Kar as they save the day. And then there is TDF, where the Doctor actually falls as Nardole and Heather end up as the heroes. It makes for a depressing end for THE best era in DW (the 12th Doctor era). Now excuse me while I remove LOTL from my head and think about nicer things.

ps: Missy showing regret for people she killed in the end made no sense in this story either.

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 21 hours ago

“And then again, she is shown as not being allowed to get angry (since when is anger a LUXURY for people like her- isn't that all we have?)”

I think the episode agrees with you there. The 'joke' (well, it's not a joke per se; let's say the 'clever Moffat substitution-game') of the scene is that at first you think the Doctor is telling her not to be angry for the usual ethical reasons, and Bill is understandably not down with that since the Doctor is very much at fault, but then it turns out that the reason she mustn't get angry is not some moral stance but the much more literal, practical matter that when she gets angry she blows big flaming holes in the walls.

(Which makes no sense, granted. It made sense for the Daleks when Moffat first came up with the idea of "machine-encased human's strong emotions make the robot body fire laserbeams on the outside" in ‘The Magician's Familiar’. But it is absurd to propose that Cybermen fuel their weapons with strong emotions, I mean *really* now.)

I've noticed that our good blogger here, and her readership, tend to not like it when ‘Doctor Who’ actively, aggressively refuses to be a political metaphor, but it does so more often than you lot acknowledge. I'm fairly sure, for example, that “Kerblam!” isn't in any sense a 'pro-Amazon allegory'; rather, it's a parody of the entire idea of making a sci-fi anti-Amazon satire.

Link | Reply

El Sandifer 5 days, 21 hours ago

Hi Valdron, and welcome to the site. I couldn't help but notice that you're taking the "comment exclusively to criticize the leftism of the article and other posters" approach to engaging with the site, and I wanted to wish you the best of luck as you attempt to do so without crossing over into being an annoying prat that gets sitebanned. It's historically proven an arduous task, but I have both hope and faith that you'll buck the trend by offering thoughtful insight that doesn't just come off as someone looking to pick fights or "trigger the libs."

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 17 hours ago

Sorry if that's how I came across. I am certainly not doing anything so self-defeating as deliberately looking for trouble; while I don't agree with all your or your commenters' political (or indeed critical) views, I *like* thoughtful discussions between opposing point of views. If I wasn't interested in understanding other people's well-reasoned opinions, I wouldn't be reading this site, natch.

And I do believe I've made some non-political comments already. At any rate I didn't particularly try to comment about political matters in particular, it's just that you do discuss political matters a lot, so a commenter engaging with what you write inevitably comes to talk about such matters a lot too.

Thanks for the welcome, at any rate! And I quite understand why you gave me such a warning; while I, again, didn't think I was coming across that way, I do imagine you must have trouble with “anti-SJW” trolls quite often.

Link | Reply

Lambda 5 days, 17 hours ago

You don't need to know anything about Amazon to condemn Kerblam! Its big, pivotal line of realisation is "the system isn't the problem", and it's difficult to come up with a line which is more thoroughly wrong and reactionary. Apart from all the huge problems with the system as presented by the story, almost all big real-world problems beyond natural stuff like pathogens can be traced back to the system - the way government, economics and institutions work to keep the powerful on the top. (Or if you want it in one word, capitalism. Formerly feudalism etc.)

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 15 hours ago

But that's meshing two different meanings of "system" together — which is, I think, at the heart of the joke ‘Kerblam!’ is playing. “System” here means a computer system; a sentient one at that. Not at all the same thing as “system” in the sense of “organization of society”.

My 'redemptive reading' of ‘Kerblam!’, to use our good blogger's terminology, is thus that it's parodying the awkward way modern-day concerns are usually transplanted into sci-fi terms to make hamfisted satire. Everything's set up like a rather lame satire of Amazon, and then the rug is pulled from under our metaphorical feet, because, don't you see, this is a universe where you've decided that "the system" was literally a sentient computer system, so the moral calculations stop making any sense — the analogy simply doesn't work.

(Similarly, we're at first meant to sympathize with the humans who want to hold on to jobs in the face of automation, because that's what the good guys want in the 21st century. But this doesn't actually make sense within Kerblam!'s sci-fi world, and we should have seen it coming that these people would turn out to be loonies. Because it's a world with easily mass-produced, sentient, friendly AI. Any right-thinking individual in that world would be fighting for *all* hard labor to be automated, and the profits distributed equally among a leisurely population, so that hard labor can be a thing of the past.)

Link | Reply

Lambda 5 days, 4 hours ago

Even if it was trying not to be evil, by having "the system isn't the problem" as its pivotal line with such a subject matter, it would have failed. That's a commentary on the system, whether the story wants it to be or not.

But there's little difference between a computer system, a socio-economic system, a circulatory system etc. in the best of times, it's all the same meaning of the word just in different mediums, and an AI running a large company will be almost indistinguishable from the economic system it's operating in and reflecting. Just look at how racism gets into modern AIs because they get their training data from a racist world, for instance. And the story doesn't even tell us where all the profits are going in the first place, let alone show any awareness that they could possibly go somewhere else. You're not even supposed to think about that. So I think these attempts to redeem it are completely groundless.

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 2 hours ago

“in the best of times, it's all the same meaning of the word just in different mediums, and an AI running a large company will be almost indistinguishable from the economic system it's operating in and reflecting”

This is, again, true in the real world but not applicable to the sci-fi world of a ‘Doctor Who’ story. The Kerblam! AI isn't a nonsentient neural net; it's a *person*. And we're clearly invited to think of it as such, both with the personal nature of the “Help me!” message and the personality displayed by its 'ancestor' Twirly.

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 2 hours ago

Oh, and I almost forgot: there's also Thirteen's comment right at the beginning of the episode about discrimination against robots not being okay. Again and again the episode reminds us that AI=person in its world.

Link | Reply

mx_mond 5 days, 4 hours ago

This ‘friendly’ AI murdered someone about 5 minutes before the Doctor declared it’s not the problem. I think it’s fair to say Kerblam! fails on the terms you set out for it as well.

Link | Reply

Przemek 5 days, 3 hours ago

"it's parodying the awkward way modern-day concerns are usually transplanted into sci-fi terms to make hamfisted satire"

Let's assume that's true. If the writer of "Kerblam!" wants the audience to get that from the episode, he should point towards that meaning. Invite us to look beyond what's on the surface by gesturing towards hidden depths. He should, say, have the characters talk about the double meaning of the word "system". Or have them discuss computer systems and have the Doctor point out that discussing them in moral terms is pointless. Or have her agree with someone in the story who claims that human labor should be replaced by machine labor. Or, at the very least, the writer should clearly make "Kerblam!" a story about stories and how we shoehorn our issues into them whether they fit or not. Maybe have the Doctor and the gang investigate space Amazon because there was a journalist who recently exposed their dirty secrets - and then have the Doctor discover that the journalist made it all up to fit her political agenda. But none of that happens.

How the vast majority of people understood this episode is as a story about how companies like Amazon are fine despite their wrongdoings and the real danger are hot-headed luddite fanatics. And the viewers aren't wrong to see it like that because that's what's going on on the surface. And nothing in the episode itself points towards your meta reading of it. Perhaps you're right about what the writer intended (although I don't think so) but seeing how you're pretty much the only person who read the story that way, he failed to convey that meaning. If it's a satire, then nobody got the joke.

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 2 hours ago

That's a very fair answer. I'm just trying to make sense of “Kerblam!”, you understand? Because for all that my interpretation of it may seem far-fetched, the 'surface-level' interpretation of its being pro-Amazon doesn't make a lick of sense *either* for the reasons I outlined (the jiggery-pokery of the two meanings of "system", the fact that the reasons the "give humans jobs!" people are wrong is dependent on the nature of the future universe and thus not at all applicable on Earth).

If you wanted to write a pro-Amazon sci-fi scenario, “Kerblam!” would be a needlessly roundabout and confusing way of doing it.

Link | Reply

Przemek 5 days, 1 hour ago

I agree. "Kerblam!" is indeed confusing and I'm not sure what reading of it the writer intended. But I think what ultimately came across is "space Amazon good, activists bad". Or, at the very least, "working conditions in space Amazon warehouses aren't ideal, but they're also not so bad and most of the workers seem happy". Which is problematic given how real Amazon treats its workers. if the writer didn't intend that... well, again, thinking about unintended subtext of your work can really help in such matters.

(And I don't mind far-fetched interpretations - that's what this place is for!).

Link | Reply

tachyonspiral 3 days, 18 hours ago

The reading i took away was 'space Amazon flawed, activists evil', with the understanding that regardless of the horrible things space Amazon was doing, none of them crossed whatever line would have provoked the Doctor into stopping them.

There's a phenomenon you often see in centrist/liberal media where they will pull their rightwards punches, but not their leftwards ones, perhaps because they're nervous about upsetting conservative types too much. I took this episode to be something of that sort, but i'd agree that the end result was confusing. Bit of a muddled story, really.

Link | Reply

David Anderson 5 days ago

I think that in a context where the words, 'cause' and 'activist,' are being used, 'system,' will naturally carry connotations of the social and economic system regardless of whatever the author meant by it. And as noted, it's not as if the AI isn't willing to murder innocent people to achieve its ends.

At the end of Kerblam! the corporate managers promise to the Doctor that they've seen the error of their ways, and they'll respond to the legitimate grievances of the killer, by hiring more human beings. Which one feels is completely inadequate as a response to what we've seen on screen. (We've not actually seen anyone out of work who would be better off being employed in those conditions.) Not that I think the author was trying to push any pro-Amazon political agenda. They just don't address the problems they've raised on the screen. It's more that they thought they'd do a Whodunnit with a clever twist where the obvious suspect (the evil corporation) turned out not to be the murderer after all, and then didn't have the patience to think through how to make it work.

Link | Reply

Rodolfo Piskorski 5 days ago

To be fair to those managers, hiring more human workers is exactly what the killer wanted.

Link | Reply

Rodolfo Piskorski 5 days ago

I know it's almost impossible not to hear "system" in Kerblam as meaning the socio-economic system, but in the context of the scene they were talking about the computer system.

The dialogue is framed as a discussion about technology.

CHARLIE: If that's the price to change how everyone on Kandoka sees technology, then it is worth it, for the cause. [...] We can't let the systems take control!
DOCTOR: The systems aren't the problem. How people use and exploit the system, that's the problem. People like you.

Charlie was unhappy with the way the computer system was exploiting humans. But the Doctor, following her stance against anti-robot prejudice, points out that the computer system was only exploitative because it had been programmed that way, by humans. Just like Charlie was now programming it to do something else, and the Doctor was pointing out that Charlie was being as villainous as the original programmers in his imoral use of technology. "The systems aren't the problem" means that technology is amoral.

Of course, the problem is that the system is actually quite smart and capable of autonomous decision-making, and it decided to kill someone just out of strategy. This is the most glaring thing in the episode. No one, not even Charlie, brings up the dangers of a technology capable of making life-and-death decisions by itself.

And then, as others pointed out, there is the obvious question of why they don't have fully automated luxury space communism, since there is no reason why any humans must work. This the gigantic blindspot that not even Charlie sees.

Link | Reply

Przemek 4 days, 23 hours ago

I agree with the problems you identify. I don't neccessarily agree with everything else.

"the computer system was only exploitative because it had been programmed that way, by humans".

Just like the socio-economic system. I fail to see the difference.

""The systems aren't the problem" means that technology is amoral."

But it really isn't. Some systems are explicitly designed to be immoral, to hurt some people in order to benefit others. There's nothing amoral about tanks. Sure, you could in theory use them to dig holes or remove debris or whatever, but they were build to kill people.

The computer system in "Kerblam!" wasn't designed to kill and exploit workers, sure, but it also clearly wasn't safeguarded enough against people using it to kill and exploit workers. It just wasn't a priority. The system was designed to maximize the profits of those running the company; people's safety and their working conditions came second. Just like in the real world. To have the Doctor disregard these facts and claim that the systems themselves are fair, just abused by people is just simply wrong.

Link | Reply

tachyonspiral 3 days, 18 hours ago

The problem, imo, was they tried to do this thing about automation in the same story as this satire of minimum wage jobs, and didn't think very hard about how the two mesh together.

Link | Reply

Przemek 5 days, 21 hours ago

I hate this story with passion, for mostly the same reasons as Dr. Sandifer. The sheer cynicism of that fake regeneration would be enough to make me angry, but that's just one of the many, many shitty things about this episode. Including, but not limited to how it fails to be about anything at all.

But I'm especially furious at LOTL's treatment of the Doctor, who becomes this arrogant, bullying asshole who just can't resist stealing other people's thunder. He basically regresses into his own version of the Sixth Doctor, complete with an abused companion who the script doesn't even allow to get angry at her abuser. If I was to find any meaning in the fake regeneration scene, I'd say it symbolises the show itself deciding it's better to kill... that thing... off than to have it as a main character.

Link | Reply

David Ainsworth 5 days, 21 hours ago

I suppose this episode distinguishes itself by being so massively wrong that it even tops most of the others El calls out for being epically bad. (Celestial Toymaker gets a break because we don't have it complete in the archives.) This episode is so bad that you can find new terrible incoherencies in it every time you look. Two for example:
In an episode supposedly going after brainwashing and false narrative (that thinks it is taking on "truthiness" as the ultimate enemy), there's a whole action sequence built around people attacking a monument while having to constantly listen to propaganda over headphones (on outdated tech, no less) and who turn against the cause when they stop. What's the point? The way to fight an Orwellian state is to adopt its methods? Nobody in the central pyramid room has any problem remembering what they're up to without the tape loop, so the premise gets dropped after guy who was never a threat gets knocked out (and if we are supposed to be concerned about his well-being, never seeing him again seems problematic).

Bill's mom is immune to the History Monk's false rewriting because she was never real to begin with, as Bill remembers her. This premise requires, among other things, a misunderstanding of what "history" is that is so massive one wonders if Whithouse ever took a history course in school. Worse, it is blatantly falsified by earlier portions of the episode, which show the Monks getting themselves integrated into the sum total of human culture including literature, which is materially similar to the thing that supposedly makes Bill's mom special.

The character who is supposed to save the day here is a black lesbian. Was nobody able to identify anything in the likely lived experience of a black lesbian which might make her especially able to combat the Monk's normalizing ubercultural conquest, aside from having had a mother who died when she was very young? At some point, with an episode this bad, one starts to wonder whether those involved in its conception were merely clueless or whether it represents an act of colossal cowardice in the face of a supposedly current political and moral challenge.

That this episode might perhaps be salvagable (though still not worthwhile) if it ended with a framing narrative showing a Monk telling the story of why they left Earth to a Slitheen in a bar in no way suggests that it should have been made in the first place, even in extremis.

Link | Reply

Annie 5 days, 20 hours ago

"Alt-right Doctor Who, for all that the show is naturally geared to resist that impulse, would ultimately be frighteningly easy to make, in the way that fascism is always frighteningly easy to make out of liberalism"
That's an interesting point, I've always thought that Doctor Who trends towards the alt-right anyway, with every alien species being treated as the other and the doctors favouritism and support of humanity over and above other species, though he claims he is not biased.
Kind of like how the alt-right likes to claim that they're not racist, honest, it's just that they support their own culture and there's nothing wrong with in group preference.
Logically, there is no reason why the doctor should care about conflicts between humans and aliens, yet time and again we see him intervening on the human side since humanity is, naturally, the goodguy

Link | Reply

Przemek 5 days, 3 hours ago

I think that's hard to avoid when you're telling a story that's centered on humans and meant to be enjoyed by humans. DW did plenty of stories about how attacking aliens without trying to at least communicate with them is wrong, but at the end of the day this is an action adventure show that needs to have monsters. Sure, the Doctor's favouritism makes no sense in-universe, but that's because it actually doesn't stem from inside that universe. It stems from our own biases.

Link | Reply

Rodolfo Piskorski 5 days ago

But the Doctor himself is not human and is not from Earth. So that's already a very big example of not being biased towards one's own community. He doesn't even like the Time Lords that much.

Link | Reply

mx_mond 4 days, 23 hours ago

Aren’t they his community by choice, though? So it’s a bit like someone acquiring a new citizenship and becoming fervently patriotic to the point of being nationalistic about his new home.

Link | Reply

liminal fruitbat 3 days, 22 hours ago

They could try to avoid it, though. Certainly Transformers as a franchise is proof that human audiences can care about an entire cast of non-human characters.

Link | Reply

Christopher Brown 5 days, 20 hours ago

I've waited two years for this post and it was worth it.

Interesting - or not, just depressing - that this episode is the one that most predicts the Chibnall era.

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 17 hours ago

In what way do you mean? Aside from general shoddiness, I don't really see the parallels.

Link | Reply

CJM123 5 days, 14 hours ago

For me, it's a constant desire to show engagement with ideas (Totalitarianism and history here, religious extremism and revenge in "The Battle of the Generic Planet" for example) without actually engaging with the ideas, and then dropping after doing nothing with them.

Alongside that, it has this dull sense of doing the most predictable setting possible half-the-time. I know we debate whether the Monks are Fascist or Soviet, for me they are Soviet simply because the episode is going for the most blatant TV signs of a Police State, without actually doing anything but showing them. From 1950-1990, Western Media usually used Soviet iconography, because that was the major world-power, so the episode is Soviet. Similarly, Spiders of Sheffield has a villain scheme that is the traditional "Pollution is everywhere" that is meant to repulse you, but honestly converting a full landfill into grass-land seems like a good idea to me.

It's that lack of interest in anything but being really obvious Doctor Who without being good at it that makes both stand-out. Though I think this only applies to Chibnall himself, not his guest writers. Everyone of them was trying to do something different, even with Kerblam and The Witchfinders.

Link | Reply

Forrest Leeson 5 days, 19 hours ago

Feint...fake...why either? Bill killed the Doctor¹ and he spent the rest of the series staving off regeneration. Neatly explains why he let her get a dirty great hole shot through her in the end; he's petty that way.

(¹ That is to say, the last of the clones of Doctor Funkenstein, the original having been killed via transporter at the end of in Face The Raven. I liked the resulting description of Clara as a gun made of leaves, and the implication that Missy's in the reformatorium because of the discovery, having finally killed the Doctor off in her best and most complicated plot², that she felt bad about it afterward.)
(² There's a reason the Hybrid Prophecy seems like an insertion into history. "I've been all up and down your timeline...")

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 17 hours ago

I feel like “Doctor Funkenstein” is a reference to some in-joke I should be getting, but I don't get it.

Link | Reply

Sarah 5 days, 15 hours ago

The Twelfth Doctor called himself "Doctor Funkenstein" in "The Zygon Invasion."

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 15 hours ago

Ah, right. “Basil”, from the same two-parter had blotted it out in my memory. I think that one's funnier because it's just slightly believable if you buy that he's half-human; so you can't *quite* be *entirely* sure that he was joking after all, which really makes the gag.

Not that ‘Doctor Funkenstein’ is a bad pun in its own right, though.

Link | Reply

Przemek 5 days, 2 hours ago

I like that reading a lot.

Link | Reply

Aylwin 5 days, 17 hours ago

That is an excellent choice of title quote.

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 17 hours ago

Agreed.

Link | Reply

Brian B. 5 days, 16 hours ago

In the midst of a rightly furious article, I'm happy that El stopped to praise the direction of Wayne Yip. An admission: when I watched the episode, I hadn't seen any of the advance promo materials (I always avoid them), and I found the first half of the episode genuinely compelling. Not in an "I like this" way, no, but in a "wow, everything looks great and the actors are throwing themselves into this and it's a fascinating premise and I wonder how they're going to justify this" way.

Then the point-and-laugh-at-Bill scene ruined that, of course. But it was so bafflingly out-of-nowhere that I spent the rest of the episode more confused than anything else -- jaw safely dropped, but still trying to appreciate the many nice details around the edges, and hoping something sane would come of this. I went to El's original review when it was over, and that's what it took to process my anger; to really let me feel betrayed instead of just going "wait ... what did I miss?"

Usually i rewatch an episode before El's eruditorium entry. I didn't this time, but still find the episode much, much too memorable. Yikes.

Link | Reply

Rodolfo Piskorski 5 days ago

I felt the same during the first 5 minutes of Ghost Monument. Everything was fucking GRIPPING.

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 15 hours ago

My experience is somewhat similar. I'm quite a recent (though eager) recruit to Who fandom, and so bingewatched the new series up to Series 10; meaning that such twists as the 'regeneration' in this episode, or the Mondasians and Mr Saxon in “Enough Falls Upon a Time”, were new to me as well.

Link | Reply

Vadron 5 days, 15 hours ago

You know, thinking about it some more, I think if the back half of “Lie of the Land” had actually been… you know… good… I could have come to see the "hahah, fooled you" twist as praiseworthy bravado rather than a cheap cop-out.

Because in away, its Moffatian narrative substitution gone wrong, isn't it? One premise played with and then pulled from under our feet, and then replaced with another. Except the decoy premise was so much better than what replaced it.

Link | Reply

Przemek 5 days, 3 hours ago

I can't think of a premise so good that it would justify turning the Doctor into someone who puts Bill through emotional hell for no good reason and then laughs at her trauma.

Link | Reply

Vadron 4 days, 23 hours ago

Honestly, I could see it as a return to Capaldi's Series 8 callousness; he keeps up the charade in front of Bill for his stated reason of the risk that she's been sent by the Monks to test his loyalty, not realizing how heartless this will seem to have been if Bill is in fact free of the Monks' controls.

I think a good way to play it would be to move the Doctor's learning of Bill as the psychic lynchpin to *before* she meets up with him; as such, knowing that she's at the center of the Monks' psychic network, the Doctor has very serious reasons to believe that she's more the Monks' than anyone else. Hence when he tests her loyalty it shouldn't be a cursory precaution; he should be incredibly relieved that she's free.

So very incredibly relieved that he bursts out laughing out of sheer joy, having thus far feared that *he* would have to be the one forced to shoot Bill dead, only for the roles to be reversed, proving decisively that his worries were for naught.

Link | Reply

Przemek 4 days, 22 hours ago

I could see that working. If and only if he apologizes and comforts her afterwards. And hopefully in this scenario she gets to punch him in the face anyway.

Link | Reply

David Anderson 5 days ago

I think for narrative substitution to work the way in which the one narrative is abandoned has to do with the flaws in the narrative. To cite a non-Doctor Who example that succeeds , the twist in Sixth Sense works because Bruce Willis' character thinks he is an angst-ridden saviour (with the de rigeur failing relationship with his wife); the twist is that because that's the story Willis thinks he's in he doesn't see what is actually happening.
Whereas in Shyalalam's later films (that I've seen) the twist is not organically related to the failings of the stories the characters are telling themselves.

Link | Reply

Prandeamus 5 days, 14 hours ago

The ha ha fake regeneration makes no sense from Bill's POV unless the Doctor or Nardole has explained what regeration is and what it looks like. There's no evidence for that and indeed Bill has no awareness of it in WEAT/TDF. It makes marginally more sense to fandom in this regard in terms of continuity but just makes no sense at all inside the story. It's just a big WHY that hangs over the whole episode.

As per last week's entry it's hard not to think that Moff would have stepped in more actively were it not for his personal difficulties at the time.

When was the last time the Doctor appeared to go rogue? Invasion of Time? Evil of the Daleks? At least in those stories there's an explanation with a tenuous relevance to plot.

Maybe it's a nested simulation from Extremis with a weird bug in it. The Monks are running it for kicks on a Saturday night because they're drunk.

Link | Reply

CJM123 5 days, 14 hours ago

Especially weird, because Knock, Knock has the Doctor
explicitly dismiss a question about regeneration. I assumed that this was setting up that Bill wouldn't know about regeneration at all, but it seemed to get dropped.

Link | Reply

Przemek 5 days, 1 hour ago

Yeah, that was very weird. It seemed deliberate for a very long time (is the Doctor hiding his regeneration from Bill in "The Doctor Falls" because for some reason he doesn't want her to know?) but ultimately it went nowhere. Just another sign of the production team not having a coherent vision of the season as a whole. (See also: Missy).

(And that's not even addressing the question of how is it even biologically possible to fake the regeneration energy shooting out of your body... Unless he was using a perception filter or something. Then again, WHY).

Link | Reply

Vadron 4 days, 21 hours ago

Oh, I don't think he was *faking* the regeneration energy. Moffat has shown over and over that Time Lords can release small amounts of regeneration energy at will even when not dying (i.e. Eleven healing River's wrist, Twelve trying to heal Davros's sight).

Giving up regeneration energy for frivolous reasons is very reckless of the Twelfth Doctor, yes, but not so very less reckless than his “steal eyesight from his future self” trick in “Extremis”. And with the hindsight of the final three-parter, we now know the Twelfth Doctor was not at all sure about regenerating ever again, making it logical that he'd have no qualms about expending this regeneration energy he wasn't planning on using anyway.

Which makes sense, of course. Being the Twelfth Doctor is just fixing his mistake as the Tenth and giving him the whole thirteen-lives experience; regenerating once more on the other hand is *actually* wandering beyond the natural Time Lord lifespan.

(Plus, it's been repeatedly hinted that the cycle he got on Trenzalore was probably for much more than 12 lives, so he has a *lot* of wiggle room either.)

Link | Reply

prandeamus 3 days, 13 hours ago

..... is the Doctor hiding his regeneration from Bill in "The Doctor Falls" because for some reason he doesn't want her to know ....?

He's world-weary He doesn't want to regenerate at all. Not in the petulant sense of "I don't want to go" but because he knows it's just another run around the endless hamster wheel that is near-immortality. Or maybe he's scared of the ego-death that it represents, in a way which is of course explicitly paralleled in the first Doctor's feelings. It's not until the end of TaaT that he changes his mind and chooses to live again. So he's not hiding it from Bill in TDF, he simply doesn't want the regeneration to happen.

Link | Reply

Sleepyscholar 3 days, 12 hours ago

That's right. After all, he's a Time Lord: he can see Chibnall coming!

Link | Reply

Przemek 3 days, 3 hours ago

I get that now. I was just recalling the questions I had while first watching.

Having said that, I STILL don't get what finally convinced him to regenerate. Aside from behind-the-scenes reasons. that is.

Link | Reply

Vadron 3 days, 1 hour ago

Well, he spent a whole episode running about convincing the *First* Doctor to regenerate; presumably he would have felt like a bit of a hypocrite if *he* continued to refuse.

Alternatively, his saving Grandpapa Lethbridge-Stewart drove the point home that he has a duty to the world, that there is so much good he can do if he keeps on living. (Hence “yes, yes, I know, they'll get it all wrong without me”.)

It's worth remembering that he's bout of "no, no, I want to die" comes after a spectacular *failure* of his saving-people shtick in the Mondasian two-parter; Missy's dead, Bill's dead, everyone's dead for all he knows, and it's a foregone conclusion that the Cybermen survive anyway, because he saw their descendants way back in “The Tenth Planet”. Perhaps a nice, successful bit of people-saving is all needed.

Link | Reply

Przemek 2 days, 3 hours ago

Perhaps you're right about people-saving. Him regenerating out of a fear of being a hypocrite I don't quite buy...

I just think the episode was a bit muddled in that regard. We got lots of possible reasons but not a definitive one. And the timing was weird. By the end of the story, when the First Doctor asks him if he's ready to regenerate, the Twelfth Doctor still seems determined to die. Even later still, when he says goodbye to the memories of Bill, Nardole and Clara, he's all like "my life is an empty battlefield" and "can't I rest". Two minutes later he just accepts his regeneration. All the reasons you mentioned work... but I feel like such a huge change of heart should be better explained on-screen.

My personal theory is that he managed to cheat himself in a way, that during his last moments in the TARDIS he convinced himself that regeneration was truly like death and so was an acceptable alternative to truly dying ("one more lifetime won't kill anyone... well, except me"). But again, from the episode itself I never got a clear sense of what finally convinced him to live.

Link | Reply

prandeamus 1 day, 18 hours ago

"Oh, there it is. Silly old universe. The more I save it the more it needs saving. It’s a treadmill.

Tardis noise

Yes, yes I know they’ll get it all wrong without me.

Tardis noise

Well, I suppose….one more lifetime won’t kill anyone. Well, except me."

Headcanon: In moments of stress, just before death, he can communicate verbally with the TARDIS, who convinces him to carry on. Yes, I know it's just a few seconds of vwoorping but maybe there's a full Gallifreyan argument in there. It's not perfect as an explanation, but I'll go for that rather than the extra-diegetic "Jodie's signed the contract and the BBC isn't going to kill a cash cow"

Link | Reply

mx_mond 5 days, 3 hours ago

“The most obvious irony—that Bill’s memory of her mother is explicitly imagined and thus “her voice, her smile” are in fact just as much a constructed lie as the Monks’ false history of humanity—is simply ignored.”

There is something that fascinates me deeply in this. Sometimes I think that we live in a time when the left cannot just win against the right with facts: it needs a myth. And the resolution to The Lie of the Land seems to gesture at that as well. What defeats the Monks is an imagined personification of motherly love. A femininity to combat the “toxically masculine cult of power and virility” of fascism (absent from the episode, but present in real life).

In a nice bit of synchronicity, I just read Noah Berlatsky’s yesterday piece “Does Sci-Fi Fear the Matriarchy?”, about the villification of reproductive freedom and motherhood as road to totalitarianism in science fiction. As with Under the Lake/Before the Flood, Whithouse seems to have stumbled onto a pre-existing knot of signifiers that he couldn’t quite manage to deal with in a way that made sense – but the episode really does seem like a signpost to an interesting and potentially fruitful field of exploration.

“At least this one looks good.”

For me this episode is salvaged (barely) by Pearl Mackie’s acting. She acts the hell out of Bill shooting the Doctor and then attempting to sacrifice herself – to an extent that I really thought she might die/become brain-dead. I know the writing and the politics are shit. But I still enjoy watching her in this.

Link | Reply

Przemek 4 days, 22 hours ago

"What defeats the Monks is an imagined personification of motherly love. A femininity to combat the “toxically masculine cult of power and virility” of fascism (absent from the episode, but present in real life)."

I LOVE that reading. It shows how sometimes even the stupidest ideas/plot points can be salvaged if one digs deeper to find a good way to use them.

Now I'm imagining a version of this story where the Monks are explicitly male and fascist and they do actually manage to brainwash the Doctor (and Nardole). The only people not affected are Bill (because she's the nexus or whatever) and Missy because she's locked away in a box. But then, after 6 months of no visits from the Doctor, Missy decides to break free. Then she finds Bill and we get a lovely double act where Missy is trying to get Bill to sacrifice herself and Bill instead finds a way to use her love for her mother to defeat the Monks, freeing the Doctor's mind. That way the plot is solved and Missy gets an incentive to see herself in a different light, making her "turning good" plot work a little bit better. That could work, I think.

Link | Reply

Brett 4 days, 5 hours ago

"Cybermen don’t work as a sole villain"

Oh, I think that's unfair, and not remotely true. I think perhaps it is difficult to effectively make them work as a sole villain, but Nightmare in Silver has no flaws that couldn't be fixed with a rewrite -- without introducing another villain. To start with, it could feature the actual Cybermen, rather than the bloody Borg and without Matt Smith doing a ridiculous (but difficult, so kudos to him) double-role.

(That said, it sounds like I'm saying I'm cleverer than Gaiman and Moffat, and I'm pretty sure that I'm not.)

Link | Reply

Vadron 4 days, 1 hour ago

While I agree that “Nightmare in Silver” *could* be fixed without introducing any more villains, I couldn't disagree more on jettisoning Mr Clever being essential to this. Mr Clever was the best part of the episode as far as I'm concerned.

Link | Reply

tachyonspiral 3 days, 17 hours ago

Was Nightmare in Silver even that bad? I thought it was mediocre, not as aggressively awful as TLotL.

Link | Reply

Przemek 2 days, 3 hours ago

It was indeed mediocre, but when compared to Gaiman's previous DW effort (and the general quality of his writing), it seemed very disappointing. Had it been written by any other writer, it would be better liked, I think.

Link | Reply

Vadron 1 day, 23 hours ago

Honestly, as I think was mentioned in the Eruditorium entry for it, the script was cheated by the direction and set design. You never got a sense that it was set in an abandoned amusement-park at all, it was just generic-future-setting and then generic-medieval-castle. With a moodier, wackier direction (I'm thinking something along the lines of Terry Gilliam?), it could have succeeded much better without changing a single coma of the script.

Link | Reply

kevin merchant 4 days, 4 hours ago

I always thought the first half of this story was Moffat's version of "The Next Doctor". The fact that it has been carefully pointed out that Bill doesn't know about regeneration (unlike us), all the prepublicity focusing on the fake regeneration. The way it is filmed to draw us in to make us Bill so that we are the the one's who are being faked out.

As the fifth Doctor said when he explained the six faces of delusion:
That was probably the point

Link | Reply

Przemek 4 days, 4 hours ago

If so, then RTD used the idea of a fake regeneration/Doctor to tell a story about identity, memory and loss. Moffat/Whithouse used it to tell a story about nothing and then laughed at us.

Link | Reply

Vadron 3 days, 12 hours ago

By the way, does anyone know anything about the BBC Monks vs Big Finish Veritas thing?

Link | Reply

Citizen Alan 2 days, 11 hours ago

"Nightmare in Silver, in particular, is bad in ways that are difficult to relate to any generally applicable principle beyond, perhaps, the all too often realized “Cybermen don’t work as a sole villain.”"

I respectfully disagree and point to "World Enough & Time," which was the most genuinely terrifying episode of the Capaldi era. The problem with "Nightmare In Silver," IMO, is that Neil Gaiman fundamentally misunderstood what makes the Cybermen work. In his defense, though, every single writer who tackled the Cybermen between WE&T and "The Tenth Planet" fundamentally misunderstood them as well.)

Link | Reply

mx_mond 2 days, 3 hours ago

“I respectfully disagree and point to "World Enough & Time," which was the most genuinely terrifying episode of the Capaldi era.”

Notably WEaT also had the Master.

Link | Reply

Citizen Alan 2 days, 11 hours ago

"This is something very different—a marketed premise that’s thrown away with nothing more than a “ha ha only kidding,” in which the Doctor, Nardole, and a room full of men laugh at a woman of color and the audience for ever believing the story in the first place."

I was utterly baffled by that whole scene. My assumption at the time was that the Monks were able to maintain their hold on Earth because Bill gave them permission to take over out of love for the Doctor. Which is nonsensical, but it at least would have given the Doctor a rational basis for his actions -- the first step in breaking the Monks' hold would naturally be causing Bill to hate him and wish that she'd let him die. But no, they decided to go with something that was both nonsensical AND pointless.

Link | Reply

MattM 2 days, 3 hours ago

Oh, that's a nice idea.

This whole episode is full of nice ideas that are then completely squandered, which makes it far far worse than just another mediocre runaround.

Link | Reply

Przemek 1 day, 21 hours ago

And also a whole heap of terrible ideas thrown in for good measure.

Link | Reply

New Comment

required

required (not published)

optional

Recent Posts

Archive

Tags

Authors

Feeds

RSS / Atom