[tv show] Doctor Who

[pooley]

Even my 11 year old is bored with the new Dr. I don't want history lessons or to be given a moral tale. I just want to be entertained. Surely someone who's 900+ years old should be a little more composed too!

[Arthur]

[6Foot2]

Link: What Did You Think of Demons Of The Punjab? – The Doctor Who Site News

 

Now that the sixth episode of series 11 has aired what did you think? Was it everything you had hoped for or not what you expected.

 

India, 1947. The Doctor and her friends arrive in the Punjab, as the country is being torn apart. While Yaz attempts to discover her grandmother’s hidden history, the Doctor discovers demons haunting the land. Who are they and what do they want?

 

Poll standings at the time of posting:

 

[LeMarchand]

Even my 11 year old is bored with the new Dr. I don't want history lessons or to be given a moral tale. I just want to be entertained. Surely someone who's 900+ years old should be a little more composed too!

 

Why can't history lessons or a moral tale be entertaining?

[Ephelyon]

They certainly can. But it works less well when it's not so much a lesson as a force-feeding, and that has felt very apparent in this series at times.

 

Tonight's episode was well done in parts, particularly towards the end, although I felt the early dialogue was quite stilted. There were important messages about family, about shared history and culture, and - very significantly - unity through choice, although it also felt as though the writers had particular thoughts in the backs of their minds when they conceived how they would represent the foe element.

 

That said, I found the timing around this episode's airing particularly disheartening. Today, we marked 100 years since the end of a period in which millions of people, Brits as well as many others from what we would now call the Commonwealth, gave their lives in the cause of freedom. That freedom does, I suppose, extend to screening an episode of a much-loved British institution that very directly criticises the country and - surely to the minds of many who died - the Empire that those people fought to defend and protect.

 

There is certainly a time and a place for scrutinising and indeed criticising Britain's past, as well as that of many other countries. But perhaps it was not today.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Ephelyon

[witch]

Why can't history lessons or a moral tale be entertaining?

 

They can - but a) it wasn't

and b) It isn't really what Doctor Who is about afaic

 

For goodness sake, even the scary looking aliens had renounced violence and were now "witnessing" those who died alone.

 

She is still far too volatile and over excited most of the time

[E_G_R2]

Pedant alert - he didn't die alone

 

Has someone died in every episode so far?

 

Quite enjoyed this one compared to the last two but JW's face pulling is beginning to grate on my nerves.

[Rob_D]

Has someone died in every episode so far?

 

I don't remember anyone dying in Rosa.

[E_G_R2]

I don't remember anyone dying in Rosa.

 

Think your right, bang goes my theory that a death in every episode marks some kind of obscure sub plot line.

[Garacesh]

Spoilers follow

 

Well I liked it. And it was a much better episode than the Pting, so it's got that going for it straight away.

 

I don't think we needed a big scary alien for this style episode. I think it worked well just the way it was.

 

The red herring in the plot was very 'Who', and the realisation that the 'big bad' was in fact humans was also very 'Who'. This was your typical the folly of man episode and I feel it hit the mark with its sombre tone. Considering its themes of war and dividing countries, I can't help but feel its proximity to armistice day was intentional, and I'm OK with that. How many have died in human history because of things like disputes over land, or religion? It seems silly, sometimes.

I actually found the Vajarians an interesting concept.. An assassin race who returned to find their planet destroyed and in their mourning vowed to change their ways, who symbolically carry the ashes of their planet with them? Well that works fine for me. I reckon I prefer that to 'the big bad is aliens who just like to kill people because reasons', y'know? And who knows, maybe it's just this chapter/sect/group/whatever that have become the silent watchers. Maybe the rest of them are still out there gettin' their murder on. Or maybe they're the last ones? Could be that Vajarian culture only has one group of assassins operating at any time, like a cultural honour. They've left enough empty that they could do some interesting things with them. We'll see.

 

That being said, as always, I do have some criticisms. The biggest being that I do wish The Doctor had worked out for herself how the Holy Man had died, rather than just being told. Whilst the Vajarians were clearly in a situation to know what had happened, I feel that having them tell her instead just resulted in a bit of a lack of agency that brought things down a peg and made Jodie stop just shy of feeling like The Doctor for this episode. I reckon if she had figured it out herself, then confronted the Vajarians with that ("You're supposed to be the galaxy's greatest assassins, but I know you didn't kill him... So why are you here?!"), then learned their new nature, things would have felt a whole lot better.

Secondly, Yaz is a police officer, and Prem has clearly been to war. They should know what a gunshot wound looks like, and gunshot wounds tend to bleed. How did nobody notice an injury like that on the Holy Man?

And thirdly, the Vajarians made a very clear and direct threat to The Doctor and chums, which seems at odds with their remorseful watcher nature. Obviously it felt right in the moment because we thought they were the big bad, but looking back on it, it doesn't feel very fitting.

 

Overall, though, I do think it was a very good episode.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Garacesh

[LeMarchand]

They can - but a) it wasn't

and b) It isn't really what Doctor Who is about afaic

 

I didn't watch it last night as was not in the best of moods having had to do battle with the financial department who "support" my Dad yet again, so can't comment on the entertaining (though "Rosa" hit all history/morals/entertaining). On point b) maybe the new team are trying a return to the original remit for the show, which was education and entertainment. DW has always had the moral angle though.

[DalekSec]

Even my 11 year old is bored with the new Dr. I don't want history lessons or to be given a moral tale. I just want to be entertained. Surely someone who's 900+ years old should be a little more composed too!

 

Those who neglect the past are doomed to repeat it -George Santayana

 

I really enjoyed it, but then i love history and sci-fi so.... one of the best episodes so far, this and Rosa are top 2

Edited November 12, 2018 by DalekSec

[Garacesh]

I really enjoyed it, but then i love history and sci-fi so.... one of the best episodes so far, this and Rosa are top 2

 

Ditto. Ever since playing Onimusha on PS2 I've loved media that takes history and weaves sci-fi and fantasy into it.

[mavhc]

They could have visited India in 1943 and found out how Churchill didn't bother to divert a few ships to save 60 million people from dying, so history got off easily

[LeMarchand]

Watched Demons last night and enjoyed it. Didn't really know much about Partition apart from what it was, so was interesting to learn a little bit more. The costume design for the "Demons" was a bit ill-conceived; I kept wondering why they had those simply fabulous feather shoulder ruffles when I think they were supposed to be scary spikes and I did feel that, once again, it was all a bit passive with the "solution" being to "let things happen". Also, I know it was 70 years ago, but you'd think Nani might wonder why Yaz looks so much like the woman who appeared at her wedding day...

[mikeprice]

Just watched the latest episode - I liked it - I think she is starting to get into the role better. She is different to the other docs but then they are all different.

 

the Doc also seemed a bit more confident in herself than in the previous episodes - or is that just me

[AJWhite1970]

Watched the latest episode last night with OH (who isn't a New Who fan) and daughter (who is a New Who fan)

 

Daughter just can't get into JW as the Doctor, unsure if it's the writing, actors, direction it's going etc but is now only watching it because it's on rather than an ardent fan. OH however, who was only watching because we were thought it was a brilliant episode and showed a period of British history that has been somewhat lost to the archives.

 

I'm still undecided. JW just isn't Doctor'ish enough (yet) and that bloody sonic screwdriver coming out every 2 seconds is getting annoying. I don't know if it's because all of these episodes are stand-alone and the aliens are so alien to what we've had before or if it's all a massive bluff and suddenly all the episodes are going to crash together in ep9-10

 

I'll carry on watching for the time being...

[mavhc]

Except For That Time: Political and Social Awareness in Doctor Who - Sartorial Geek

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

http://sartorialgeek.com/political-awareness-doctor-who/

[Ephelyon]

This is clearly a very well-researched list, and brings back some good memories!

 

That said, I fear it misses the point. Doctor Who has always commented on social and cultural issues, yes, in much the same way as Star Trek has. It mainly used metaphor and allegory to allude to both past and present affairs in the real world. When it did so - albeit with varying degrees of success down the years, as with many shows - it encouraged people to think for themselves. This new formula does not do that.

 

When I have watched older episodes of Doctor Who in the past, or Star Trek for that matter (particularly TNG), I have felt as though I'm being presented with something to consider and then being encouraged to consider it. The narrative presents those perspectives, but then it gets out of the way a bit and leaves me with room to explore what I think about that. But when I watch this new Doctor Who, I just don't feel that way. I feel as though I'm being led inexorably towards a conclusion that I'm obliged to draw, and which in many cases I could have told you in ten seconds flat after seeing the pre-broadcast teaser. There is no space for me to formulate my own view, because the conclusion was always "obvious".

 

That is not how you teach anyone anything. And as for pouring scorn over those who are unhappy with this? Well... the saying goes that a poor workman blames his tools. Perhaps a poor teacher blames their students.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Ephelyon

[jthompson]

Watched the latest episode only last night, rather than on Sunday, but I have to say I found it really engaging. The baddies were once determined to destroy their enemies, but after being met with huge catastrophe, that drive was inverted into a mission of commemorating countless, forgotten dead, with a great deal of reverence and compassion. I think that sat quite nicely with the fact that it was put out on Armistice day.

 

My knowledge of the partition of India is super-basic, so it was nice to have that as the backdrop rather than something perhaps more commonly explored. It had some BTTF vibes, too.

[Garacesh]

That said, I fear it misses the point. Doctor Who has always commented on social and cultural issues, yes, in much the same way as Star Trek has. It mainly used metaphor and allegory to allude to both past and present affairs in the real world. When it did so - albeit with varying degrees of success down the years, as with many shows - it encouraged people to think for themselves. This new formula does not do that.

 

As much as I'm enjoying this series for the most part, I'd have to agree.

[LeMarchand]

This is clearly a very well-researched list, and brings back some good memories!

 

That said, I fear it misses the point. Doctor Who has always commented on social and cultural issues, yes, in much the same way as Star Trek has. It mainly used metaphor and allegory to allude to both past and present affairs in the real world. When it did so - albeit with varying degrees of success down the years, as with many shows - it encouraged people to think for themselves. This new formula does not do that.

 

When I have watched older episodes of Doctor Who in the past, or Star Trek for that matter (particularly TNG), I have felt as though I'm being presented with something to consider and then being encouraged to consider it.

 

Out of curiosity, have you watched those episodes recently - or do you mean "around time of broadcast"? I'm wondering if we're more media-savvy and conscious of what the production team are going for these days.

 

That said, I always found TNG in particular kinda preachy.

[Ephelyon]

Well, I wasn't around at the time of broadcast for some of them...

 

I think the best response I could give is that, if we are indeed more conscious of what the production team are going for these days, that's because they want us to be. And that's what some of us don't like - many things now are better than they were in the 60s and 70s (and before), but one thing that isn't is that we seem to have lost our understanding of subtlety. Sometimes people can hear things quietly that they can't hear loudly.

 

TNG was well-known for talking about moral issues, yes. But that show - mostly - had the wisdom to allow the moral aspects to fall into the backdrop somewhat, so that you had the room to think about them independently. Being "in the backdrop" doesn't necessarily mean they weren't front-and-centre to the plot; they often were. But moral development is taught by exposing people to an ambiguity and then encouraging them to resolve that ambiguity within themselves. It does not arise from people being told what to think, because it's portrayed as "obvious". Indeed, the characters were often seen to struggle with moral issues before eventually drawing a conclusion, and that's critical. Morality was presented as crucial, but not an externally-defined absolute, and understanding that is a big part of developing empathy. I'm not really seeing much grasp of this concept in NuWho.

 

The TNG episode "The Drumhead" would be a good example of the way that show taught about morals, but without being preachy. Indeed, the figure in that story who is preachy gets shot down in flames at the end, and quite right too. Although actually, at the end of that story, she falls on her own sword, having finally realised that she had gone too far herself, so we can respect her at least a little for that in the closing moments. Difficult to imagine any of today's SJWs doing anything like that... :/

Edited November 14, 2018 by Ephelyon

[LeMarchand]

Well, I wasn't around at the time of broadcast for some of them...

 

I think the best response I could give is that, if we are indeed more conscious of what the production team are going for these days, that's because they want us to be. And that's what some of us don't like - many things now are better than they were in the 60s and 70s (and before), but one thing that isn't is that we seem to have lost our understanding of subtlety. Sometimes people can hear things quietly that they can't hear loudly.

 

TNG was well-known for talking about moral issues, yes. But that show - mostly - had the wisdom to allow the moral aspects to fall into the backdrop somewhat, so that you had the room to think about them independently. Being "in the backdrop" doesn't necessarily mean they weren't front-and-centre to the plot; they often were. But moral development is taught by exposing people to an ambiguity and then encouraging them to resolve that ambiguity within themselves. It does not arise from people being told what to think, because it's portrayed as "obvious". Indeed, the characters were often seen to struggle with moral issues before eventually drawing a conclusion, and that's critical. Morality was presented as crucial, but not an externally-defined absolute, and understanding that is a big part of developing empathy. I'm not really seeing much grasp of this concept in NuWho.

 

The TNG episode "The Drumhead" would be a good example of the way that show taught about morals, but without being preachy. Indeed, the figure in that story who is preachy gets shot down in flames at the end, and quite right too. Although actually, at the end of that story, she falls on her own sword, having finally realised that she had gone too far herself, so we can respect her at least a little for that in the closing moments. Difficult to imagine any of today's SJWs doing anything like that... :/

 

OK, whipper-snapper .

 

By "we" I meant the intelligent sort of person who is a member here and not the general public, many of whom seem to think that reality/contest shows are quality TV.

 

Anyway... I think we're gonna have to disagree. I distinctly remember, even as a kid, thinking that some shows were only missing a character turning to the camera and announcing, "Today we learned that racism is BAD, folks." (Or the equivalent).

 

Can't comment on the TNG ep as I didn't watch a lot of TNG - a combo of it being pre-internet and by the time the BBC "found time in their schedule" (of repeats) it was years too late (3 years - I checked) plus the aforementioned finding it a bit preachy. However, I have seen complaints that "Discovery" is "all-action" and "no substance" (maybe I've been watching recut eps, as that's not what I felt) while "The Orville" (which I find way too obvious, though it is fun) allegedly presents interesting and subtle moral quandaries in "true" Trek style, which suggests to me that there are people that need stuff spelled out

 

I can sense the imminent appearance of a placard, btw.

Edited November 14, 2018 by LeMarchand
Clarity

[jthompson]

Was there much ambiguity in "The Drumhead"? It was pretty much "witch-hunt = bad", wasn't it? It perhaps provokes questions along the lines of 'when does a trial become a witch-hunt?', though.