Rate "Victory of the Daleks"

Dave Webb

The Co=Ordinator wrote:Ultimately Gatiss scripts never seem to deliver quite what you hope for. The whole Bracewell/Oblivion continuum/deactivation resolution didn't really work for me. And it went on for far too long, in an episode that was in parts under dveleoped. I really expected something very, very special, and although there was much to praise, it fell short of what I thought we would get.

That's because Mark Gatiss Needs Two Episodes.

It's been obvious since Idiot's Lantern that he needs to be writing two-parters, that he really does need about 90 minutes to flesh things out properly and that he's itching to give us the insights into the Little People which Nick commented on upthread (and was one of the hallmarks of RTD's time), and that he wants to bring us as much of the era as possible. But he's also got to write Daleks, Churchill, alien androids, new Doctor and new Companion.

Someone tell the Production team that Gatiss needs to set a two-parter in the Edwardian era, or any other period the chap can get his teeth into, and I promise he'll turn out a blinder.

I've rewatched today, and it got better the 2nd time through. Unlike RTD fare, where you saw more the second time, it's currently a case of being able to concentrate on specific bits - like the performances, or the effect of the new Dalek design. I can't give it 3.5 out of 5, but I'd like to based on the Companion/Doctor dynamic which is firmly back in stride and which we've not had since we were so cruelly robbed of Donna.

Right now I'm thinking 3.5/5, and can't decide whether to go 3 or 4.

Dave Webb wrote:

The Co=Ordinator wrote:Ultimately Gatiss scripts never seem to deliver quite what you hope for. The whole Bracewell/Oblivion continuum/deactivation resolution didn't really work for me. And it went on for far too long, in an episode that was in parts under dveleoped. I really expected something very, very special, and although there was much to praise, it fell short of what I thought we would get.

That's because Mark Gatiss Needs Two Episodes.

It's been obvious since Idiot's Lantern that he needs to be writing two-parters, that he really does need about 90 minutes to flesh things out properly and that he's itching to give us the insights into the Little People which Nick commented on upthread (and was one of the hallmarks of RTD's time), and that he wants to bring us as much of the era as possible. But he's also got to write Daleks, Churchill, alien androids, new Doctor and new Companion.

I disagree that he needed two episode for The Idiot's Lantern, but I agree here. The episode could have done with more running time. That said, not sure whether it had the weight needed for a whole 90 minutes.

I've now watched it three times, and have liked it less with each succesive viewing. It's the anti-'Gridlock', if you will.

There's just too much wrong with it, and closer inspection throws the flaws into the light too readily. It's almost as if it was written before the days of iPlayer, torrents, DVDs, and iTunes.

Ultimately, however, it keeps coming back to the new Daleks. If the whole point of an episode is a reveal it's probably a good idea not to reveal something that makes the viewer go 'What? Seriously? Is that really them?!?'...

(And I hate being in tune with the prevailing wind of fandom so much it hurts, but in the case of the new Daleks I am. They just look wrong. Still, it just goes to show that if you give a seemingly-infinite number of ming-mongs an overwhelming number of internet connections they'll eventually come up with an opinion I agree with...)

Dingdongalistic wrote:
I disagree that he needed two episode for The Idiot's Lantern, but I agree here. The episode could have done with more running time. That said, not sure whether it had the weight needed for a whole 90 minutes.

The Idiot's Lantern had been very clearly cut down and shoe-horned into one episode, which is why a lot of it seemed rushed and unsubtle. It's one of the reasons that the story is not better liked; what should have been a tale of slowly developing horror, interwoven with commentary on how the society of the times treated the other, turns into a sudden sprint to a strange conclusion with a subplot about a boy and his bigotted father.

Victory of the Daleks had the weight simply because Gatiss was attempting to write something bigger. As the nod to Where Eagles Dare indicates, he's a fan of British WW2 movies. There were quite a few which attempted to contrast the action and peril of combat with the tension and uncertainty that marked the lives of those left on the Home Front. You can tell that Gatiss wants to develop that more, because we get lines about the other lives in the balance. If you look at what's missing, you can tell that this story was much longer and trimmed to fit the time available. We get key scenes, key beats, with none of the surrounding material that would have fleshed out some relationships or situations.

Jennyjenkins wrote:Daleks definitely better from the front - don't like the nasty bulge at the back when seen from the side, also as has been said elsewhere - the black grills are definately letting light through from behind.

Yep, I noticed the light getting through on my second viewing as well.

I don't like back of the Dalek either, but I do like the height of them.

The Co=Ordinator wrote:Right now I'm thinking 3.5/5, and can't decide whether to go 3 or 4.

That's why I still haven't rated it, can't decide between 3 or 4 just yet.

Who said Gattis needs two episodes? shudder

Hey, Gatiss isn't that bad.

No, he's a lovely man and a good actor. He just shouldn't be allowed to write a Doctor Who episode again. Three strikes and you're out!

I liked 'The Unquiet Dead'.

Alas, I didn't think much of that. I've already made my thoughts about the new Daleks clear and the episode itself didn't change my mind.

And what a mish-mash of an episode. Good first 15 minutes and then it all falls apart and turns into a Character Options commercial. Matt and Karen still good. McNeice way too over the top as Churchill. I know Gatiss loves his nostalgia but that was full of worn out old cliches and inaccuracies about the war.

Biggest failing was the lack of any emotional connection to the supporting characters and the situation. Compare it to the WW2 setting of 'The Empty Child' where Moffat really made you understand the horror of the war through the supporting characters.

Anyway - full review for you here:

http://cathoderaytube.blogspot.com/2010/04/doctor-who-series-5-victory-of-daleks_19.html

Rich Flair wrote:No, he's a lovely man and a good actor. He just shouldn't be allowed to write a Doctor Who episode again. Three strikes and you're out!

I think I'm going to have to agree with you about Gatiss. I suspect that RTD re-wrote much of 'The Unquiet Dead' and 'The Idiot's Lantern' to make them work. I would be surprised to find out if Moffat was as hands on with other writer's scripts. He strikes me as someone who is not as prepared to shape the series to such a degree. But then, what do I know.

Dave Webb wrote:
Victory of the Daleks had the weight simply because Gatiss was attempting to write something bigger. As the nod to Where Eagles Dare indicates, he's a fan of British WW2 movies. There were quite a few which attempted to contrast the action and peril of combat with the tension and uncertainty that marked the lives of those left on the Home Front. You can tell that Gatiss wants to develop that more, because we get lines about the other lives in the balance. If you look at what's missing, you can tell that this story was much longer and trimmed to fit the time available. We get key scenes, key beats, with none of the surrounding material that would have fleshed out some relationships or situations.

Yes, that is quite clearly the problem with the episode for me. The surrounding material doesn't connect with the viewer emotionally. And half way through it's just an excuse to wheel on the Power Ranger Daleks and much of the WW2 stuff becomes cultural tourism. Didn't work for me.

Frank wrote:Alas, I didn't think much of that. I've already made my thoughts about the new Daleks clear and the episode itself didn't change my mind.

And what a mish-mash of an episode. Good first 15 minutes and then it all falls apart and turns into a Character Options commercial. Matt and Karen still good. McNeice way too over the top as Churchill. I know Gatiss loves his nostalgia but that was full of worn out old cliches and inaccuracies about the war.

Biggest failing was the lack of any emotional connection to the supporting characters and the situation. Compare it to the WW2 setting of 'The Empty Child' where Moffat really made you understand the horror of the war through the supporting characters.

Anyway - full review for you here:

http://cathoderaytube.blogspot.com/2010/04/doctor-who-series-5-victory-of-daleks_19.html

i've got no problem with the doctor being mates with dickens or agatha christie- but draw the line at winston churchill.

Yeah, the 9th Doctor loves the welfare state, while his mate Churchill reckoned that it would lead to Britain being run by a communist gestapo.

But it's nice to know that the new series is taking into account Churchill's earlier meetings with the Doctor as recounted in the excellent Terrance Dicks novel Players.

I agree with Frank - the war had no emotional impact. "Cultural tourism" - spot on.

Rich Flair wrote:But it's nice to know that the new series is taking into account Churchill's earlier meetings with the Doctor as recounted in the excellent Terrance Dicks novel Players.

an awesome read. the doctor also hangs out with harry truman in the excellent EDA "endgame"- perhaps he advised him to bomb nagasaki...

excellent - he was good friends with the loveable Mao once as well.

Frank wrote:
Yes, that is quite clearly the problem with the episode for me. The surrounding material doesn't connect with the viewer emotionally. And half way through it's just an excuse to wheel on the Power Ranger Daleks and much of the WW2 stuff becomes cultural tourism. Didn't work for me.

Hence my plea for Gatiss to write a two-parter. He needs the room.

You know a story that can make Wrinkliedom collectively go hmmm, isn't all that. But you know, it's no worse than hmmm. I'd be interested to know if this is the brightly coloured adventure that the kids love?

Bill Paterson was good, as was the first twenty minutes. The spitfire attack put me in mind of the Mr. Sheen advert, but without the adventure.

Dave Webb wrote:

Dingdongalistic wrote:
I disagree that he needed two episode for The Idiot's Lantern, but I agree here. The episode could have done with more running time. That said, not sure whether it had the weight needed for a whole 90 minutes.

The Idiot's Lantern had been very clearly cut down and shoe-horned into one episode, which is why a lot of it seemed rushed and unsubtle.

Which parts?

It's one of the reasons that the story is not better liked; what should have been a tale of slowly developing horror, interwoven with commentary on how the society of the times treated the other, turns into a sudden sprint to a strange conclusion with a subplot about a boy and his bigotted father.

The subplot was part of the commentary on the society of the times, and the plot led to a logical conclusion, at least by the general standard of Doctor Who.

Victory of the Daleks had the weight simply because Gatiss was attempting to write something bigger. As the nod to Where Eagles Dare indicates, he's a fan of British WW2 movies. There were quite a few which attempted to contrast the action and peril of combat with the tension and uncertainty that marked the lives of those left on the Home Front. You can tell that Gatiss wants to develop that more, because we get lines about the other lives in the balance. If you look at what's missing, you can tell that this story was much longer and trimmed to fit the time available. We get key scenes, key beats, with none of the surrounding material that would have fleshed out some relationships or situations.

Yes, I agree, although I think it would have probably been padded were the ideas fleshed out to a two-parter. This is just guesswork, of course.

Rich Flair wrote:Yeah, the 9th Doctor loves the welfare state, while his mate Churchill reckoned that it would lead to Britain being run by a communist gestapo.

Live and let live. And Churchill didn't really believe that, he just said so in a party political.