Rate "Cold Blood"

Dave Webb wrote:It's working for me, partly because I could watch Matt Smith play the Doctor until people pay me enough to stop but mostly because I think I've worked out what my real problem is.

I think we got a bit spoiled by the RTD era, which at times appeared to have no brakes. Doing things bigger and grander and dafter was the RTD way, so other than Spitfires in Space (how Dan Dare was that?) we haven't had any really silly but curiously satisfying ideas all season.

We've had some very good performances and some quite low scale stories. If the show is calming down after the four year Tennant sugar-rush, that might be a good thing. We'll see. There's a finale coming, unfortunately, and I'll be fascinated to see what Moffat decides to do.

This about sums up my feelings. I think Matt's an excellent Doctor, I am enjoying the series, but I miss the RTD era's mad creativity.

Dave Webb wrote:I suspect a cliffhanger ending. I truely do.

Wouldn't surprise me, yeah.

@ Dave Webb: "The characters weren't nearly as interesting as people seem to think; on the one hand, a Chekov's Gun got loaded (the boy's dyslexia) and never fired. Why was it such a big deal?"

Did it need to be? I think part of what makes supporting characterisation works is a grasp of detail unrelated to the plotline.

"Secondly, the characterisation- at least as written- played with stereotypical roles."

This is a criticism I'd more agree with, although I didn't think it was too big a problem for me. What was a bit irritating was that the "torturous negotiations" didn't seem to be any longer than the short clips we saw. I mean, what else was there to say? And if all it took was an offer of technology, then how on earth was it supposed to have taken so long for either side to think of it?

@ Nick Barlow "The crack, though, has been signalled as something extremely bad and dangerous since at least episode 5, has just wiped Rory from existence and appears to signal the destruction of the TARDIS, yet it doesn't seem to have spurred the Doctor into action."

I like this, actually. It makes sense, too: it's consistent with other ways the Doctor acts. In episode 5, he all but admits that he makes it up as he goes along (something Tennant's Doctor also did), and that he hasn't a clue what he's going to do yet.

We've also seen how the Doctor will be very easily sidetracked. It had tragic consequences in this last episode, when delaying to examine the crack ended up with Rory getting shot.

Speaking of which, although I don't think the latest story was as good as some (very solid for me, but lacking something that episode 5 had that I'm not sure of yet), I do have to say that I think Rory's death was shocking in a way which Doctor Who simply hasn't been for a while. It's a clear "Russell T. Davies wouldn't have done this" moment for me.

Dingdongalistic wrote:
Did it need to be? I think part of what makes supporting characterisation works is a grasp of detail unrelated to the plotline.

Dyslexia isn't characterisation any more than "Welsh", "black" or "gay" is. Mentioning it in such a heavy handed fashion isn't characterisation, we're being told something we need to know about the boy, but it has no payoff. The time could have been spent elsewhere - helping to describe that fascinating race of reptile men, for example, or giving just a leeetle more time to develop Rory and Amy, or something.

Hi Dingdong.

Just to say that the quote functions etc are all working propelry again. Thanks for remembering the temporary change though!

Dave Webb wrote:

Dingdongalistic wrote:
Did it need to be? I think part of what makes supporting characterisation works is a grasp of detail unrelated to the plotline.

Dyslexia isn't characterisation any more than "Welsh", "black" or "gay" is. Mentioning it in such a heavy handed fashion isn't characterisation, we're being told something we need to know about the boy, but it has no payoff. The time could have been spent elsewhere - helping to describe that fascinating race of reptile men, for example, or giving just a leeetle more time to develop Rory and Amy, or something.

I'd say the character trait isn't that he's dyslexic, it's that he chooses to mention it at that particular moment. It shows his insecurity and perhaps a lack of awareness of the severity of the situation. Though, yes, it did seem a set up for The Doctor's "lemon meringue" comment.

"Dyslexia isn't characterisation any more than "Welsh", "black" or "gay" is. Mentioning it in such a heavy handed fashion isn't characterisation, we're being told something we need to know about the boy, but it has no payoff."

Hang on, you say it isn't characterisation any more than "Welsh" "black" or "gay", but then you say it needs payoff? Would being "Welsh" "black" or "guy" require payoff?

"The time could have been spent elsewhere - helping to describe that fascinating race of reptile men, for example, or giving just a leeetle more time to develop Rory and Amy, or something."

This, on the other hand, I agree with.

The Co=Ordinator wrote:Hi Dingdong.

Just to say that the quote functions etc are all working propelry again. Thanks for remembering the temporary change though!

Great! You're welcome.

Dave Webb wrote:

Dingdongalistic wrote:
Did it need to be? I think part of what makes supporting characterisation works is a grasp of detail unrelated to the plotline.

Dyslexia isn't characterisation any more than "Welsh", "black" or "gay" is. Mentioning it in such a heavy handed fashion isn't characterisation, we're being told something we need to know about the boy, but it has no payoff. The time could have been spent elsewhere - helping to describe that fascinating race of reptile men, for example, or giving just a leeetle more time to develop Rory and Amy, or something.

No, but it's crucial to one of the central themes in as much as these are supposed to reflect the best of humanity, yet the character who some would label as disabled isn't the worst of humanity: instead, his mother, an average, reasonably intelligent woman is.

The characterisation is one of contrasts, and Chibnal does his favourite trick of putting his characters in extreme situations and then seeing how they react (which is usually badly). I especially like how they had someone of Indian decent argue against what was an immigration issue.

All in all I liked the story-- it was a good, solid Dr Who story, not as good as some (The Eleventh Hour, The Beast Below, the Angels two parter and especially Amy's Choice), but better than the Dalek and Venice episodes. More and more this season, though, it feels like the story is a thirteen part story, with a very novelistic structure, and it will be hard to judge the series until it's over.

We'll be having a season "story" based poll once the series has concluded.

stanmore wrote:

Kate wrote:She is the most annoying, childish pain in the arse companion we've had in a long time. Sitting there discussing the future of her planet and she's bored. Poor darling.

Who would you say was the last annoying, childish pain in the arse? Classic series?

I replied to this last night when I was drunk but the forum seems to have eaten my post. Perhaps it's for the best as I recall something about custard that wasn't entirely on topic.

Kate wrote:

stanmore wrote:

Kate wrote:She is the most annoying, childish pain in the arse companion we've had in a long time. Sitting there discussing the future of her planet and she's bored. Poor darling.

Who would you say was the last annoying, childish pain in the arse? Classic series?

I replied to this last night when I was drunk but the forum seems to have eaten my post. Perhaps it's for the best as I recall something about custard that wasn't entirely on topic.

Something that links a pain in the arse and custard, eh? I'm intrigued...

Dave Webb wrote:

Dingdongalistic wrote:
Did it need to be? I think part of what makes supporting characterisation works is a grasp of detail unrelated to the plotline.

Dyslexia isn't characterisation any more than "Welsh", "black" or "gay" is. Mentioning it in such a heavy handed fashion isn't characterisation, we're being told something we need to know about the boy, but it has no payoff. The time could have been spent elsewhere - helping to describe that fascinating race of reptile men, for example, or giving just a leeetle more time to develop Rory and Amy, or something.

Sorry but I disagree, this is a children's show; children who have been diagnosed with Dyslexia or any of the other related learning difficulties are sometimes made to feel stupid etc so having someone say in an offhand manner about suffering with Dyslexia and another person telling them it doesn't matter I can't do something equally as 'useful' means that those children are made to feel better about themselves.

If every TV show complied to every 'theory' they would be boring, it's nice to have something that challenges theories, also didn't Davies go against Chekhov's gun theory?

I'm finding a lot of the complaints rather pedantic, it irks me immensely that in all Who episodes that have UNIT in no one can salute properly, it takes 30 seconds to learn yet still no one can be bothered to; strangely I don't let that affect my opinion of an episode.

Mrs Lee wrote:
Sorry but I disagree,

Why are you sorry?

Mrs Lee wrote:If every TV show complied to every 'theory' they would be boring, it's nice to have something that challenges theories, also didn't Davies go against Chekhov's gun theory?

Yeah, totally, which is why Boomtown is a Chekov's gun for Parting of the Ways.

Plus, it's not a theory. It's a technique. A theory, in the context of text, would be more like Orientalism. In fact, you could probably take a Postcolonial look at the story if you were so inclined. I'm not, but it's practically screaming out for one.

If you go against convention you run the risk of alienating parts of your audience. It can be done, and is being done in Who since at the moment cause does not necessarily preceed effect, but it's a risk. Sometimes it has the effect of making the show seem disjointed or badly edited. There was a major shift in style over the two episodes - it went from Base Under Seige to a Tale from Our Past, complete with a voiceover that sucked a lot of tension from the cliffhanger, and it made me wonder whether something hadn't gone awry - like, perhaps, they'd overrun and explanatory elements had been sacrificed in favour of the emotional meat - Rory dying and Amy forgetting him, and the impact this has on the Doctor.

stanmore wrote:Who would you say was the last annoying, childish pain in the arse?

I always rather assumed that was my job...

Lee Carey wrote:More and more this season, though, it feels like the story is a thirteen part story, with a very novelistic structure, and it will be hard to judge the series until it's over.

Very much the impression I get and, as I said earlier in the thread, the post-season rewatch will be interesting - I wouldn't be at all surprised if I change my mind about a good few things...

Mrs Lee wrote:[I]t irks me immensely that in all Who episodes that have UNIT in no one can salute properly...

That seems a perfectly reasonable annoyance to me - maybe that was why the Tenth Doctor got so wound up by it?