iainjclark | Doctor Who: The Long Game

Well, I liked it quite a bit.

Simon Pegg is a very good actor, but prior to watching the episode I was far from convinced he could pull off a decent performance as a Doctor Who villain. Thankfully he was basically required to play an Evil Simon Pegg. So that worked out very well. :-)

There was some typically unsuble satire, but none of the juvenile humour we've come to fear, and the writing, directing and production were very impressive - particularly the effects work on the alien creature. The setting, which might easily have seemed cartoonish (cf. Paradise Towers) was well realised, and my biggest criticism is that far too much time was devoted to Adam's misguided attempts to make time travel pay - but there was nothing actually wrong with that storyline (except the very last scene).

As always the interplay between Rose and the Doctor sparkled, and Adam actually helped to give them something to play off before wandering off into a different episode entirely. Christopher Eccleston kept the grinning to a minimum and delivered yet another convincing and charismatic performance, and it was particularly nice to see the Doctor spotting something amiss and getting right down to solving it. There was a also a freshness to the story that was missing from some of the early episodes.

More when I'm less tired and less inebriated. Any typos may also be attributed to my sozzled state. :-)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I thought Adam's storyline was the best thing about it - the main story was fairly routine and not very interesting. Next week looks like being a lot better.

I liked the satirical edge to the other part of the story, and I liked Simon Pegg's character (combination of make-up and performance) very much. The plotting was fairly threadbare, but I was very engaged by it.

It's 'Vengeance on Varos', done right.

Simon Pegg is not someone for whom I'm ever going to be a raving fanboy. However, he was very good in this. I was greatly amused.

The giant ceiling penis monster was a penis.

And it's yet more 'time isn't what it used to be!' stuff, with the human race being set back by 'about ninety years'. Compared to the trailer for next week, where Rose intentionally alters history, I'm expecting time-travel!angst of the highest order. Why the Doctor can fiddle, and why Rose can't. That would be an interesting one.

It's 'Vengeance on Varos', done right.

Hmmm. Varos was about pandering to the population with violence on TV - bread and circuses for the masses. This was about manipulation of the media to control the populace's opinions and behaviour. Related, but different.

Simon Pegg is not someone for whom I'm ever going to be a raving fanboy. However, he was very good in this. I was greatly amused.

He kept it within the realms of a real character rather than making it too broad, which was appreciated.

The giant ceiling penis monster was a penis.

Sometimes a giant toothy monster is just a giant toothy monster, Sigmund. :-P Seriously, I certainly had problems with the creature in Doublemeat Palace, but this one was fine. Rather cool, even.

And it's yet more 'time isn't what it used to be!' stuff, with the human race being set back by 'about ninety years'.

When was the last "time isn't what it used to be" story then? Surely they haven't done one in the new series yet? Unless you count every alien invasion as an attempt to pervert the course of history, which is a very generous definition! I thought this episode felt fairly fresh and interesting.

Compared to the trailer for next week, where Rose intentionally alters history, I'm expecting time-travel!angst of the highest order. Why the Doctor can fiddle, and why Rose can't. That would be an interesting one.

But, as you say, a premise which is frought with potential difficulties since they need to be very careful about what constitutes changing history - every time the Doctor travels through time and then saves a life, surely that's the same thing? Or maybe you just can't change your own history? I await with interest.

Related, but different.

But in 'Varos', the end motive is to control the population, I believe. So similar, but, yes, different also.

When was the last "time isn't what it used to be" story then?

Sorry - I should have been a bit clearer. We haven't had a story on it, obviously, but we've had several hints, mainly in 'The Unquiet Dead'; the Doctor implies that just because Rose doesn't remember lots of corpses being mentioned in Victorian Cardiff doesn't mean it can't happen if they let it now; the 'time is in flux' line; that sort of thing.

I'm interested in who set Max up in his station, and why. I'm assuming that a third party was involved somewhere, of course, but that's probably what the bad wolf references are meant to be making me think.

every time the Doctor travels through time and then saves a life, surely that's the same thing?

Well, yes. The first Doctor clearly states that 'You can't rewrite history - not one line', and the series has stuck by that more often than not (obvious exceptions like 'Genesis' aside). There's a line in next week's episode where the Doctor says that the Reapers only exist specifically because his 'people' aren't around to enforce the rules anymore. It suggests that Time Lords can bend the rules if they need to, but they won't let anyone else have a go.

I'm interested in who set Max up in his station, and why.

The Editor implied that it was his consortium of banks etc.

'You can't rewrite history - not one line', and the series has stuck by that more often than not

Yes, although there's this muddy idea of what is the present, future and past. If you take the view that all of time is someone's history, you could never change anything, surely?

There's a line in next week's episode

Oi! Spoiler boy! :-P

>>I'm interested in who set Max up in his station, and why.

>The Editor implied that it was his consortium of banks etc.

I mean, what is it about this somehow-changed universe that allowed Max to get to where he was? Who owns the banks? Why are they backing Max? What stopped them in the 'proper' version of history?

If you take the view that all of time is someone's history, you could never change anything, surely?

There's some very menky debate on this :) Basically, nobody can change what is 'meant' to happen, unless they're a Time Lord. That seems to be the tacitly accepted basis on which the TV series works. 'Day of the Daleks', for example, is the first expression of predeterminist ideas in the show, and it's not been horrifically contradicted since.

This is why some people suggest that Gallifrey existed in the far past. Not only are the Time Lords exempt from most of the laws of time, but everything that happens in the rest of the universe is in their subjective future, so they're free to fiddle as much as they like. There is, needless to say, absolutely no canonical support for this idea outside of the New Adventures :)

Oi! Spoiler boy!

Oh, psht. I'm avoiding spoilers like the plague, but if Russel Davies writes about it in his DWM column, I pick up on it and regard it as a teaser, not a spoiler :-p

There is, needless to say, absolutely no canonical support for this idea outside of the New Adventures :)

You know, considering that Doctor Who is, like, the longest running SF show ever, it's amazing how much of the accepted continuity consists of fanwankery. :-)

Eh. It was created before 'continuity' as a concept was really any kind of concern. It's the continuity of soaps, ie 'what you can remember'. There was absolutely no need for any other kind of continuity until video recorders entered the home, and that wasn't really until the mid-80s. Which, funnily enough, coincides with the most fanwanky stories onscreen.

Retcons are the only way DW is ever going to make any sense at all :)

Doctor Who: The Long Game

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject