Don't Blink.... (Dr. Who SPOILER)

[estnyc]

I'm sure we'll see the character again, on that "other" series which sucks so badly. I didn't think the revelation was such a thoughtless throwaway, but to each his own.

Don't Blink was one of the best of the new Whos, and it is indeed a fun ride to the season conclusion.

And ... Derek Jacobi? Whew!

[MacMagus]

> I didn't think the revelation was such a thoughtless throwaway, but to each his own.

I don't think that it was a "thoughtless" throwaway. It had the feel of something written by a committee.

It was such a badly out of place statement that after the revelation, they felt the need to have the Doctor and Martha explain it to the audience. It's as if a couple of middle-school kids wrote that part.

Professional writers shouldn't have to sink to "explaining things" in a dramatic work. Not since Shakespeare.

It happened again in the finale, but to such an extent that it actually had me guffawing incredulously.

They made up a device that was discordant with the character they used it on (seemingly because they couldn't come up with a motive otherwise). Then having stripped that character of any integrity, they had him expound on the device, repeating how it motivated him over and over again, as if the repetition could somehow legitimize their mistake. It started a fascinating cascade of exposition. Eventually, every significant character actually voiced where they were and what motivated them.

Portions were mindlessly fun, but geez, overall... by the end it was practically a narrative.

I'm glad they're taking 2009 off. I hope that the show gets a solid revamp during the break.

[Marc Anthony]

I was impressed with Blink, too; it's probably the best episode of the series. I've come to regard Dr. Who as one of those programs that, while entertaining, you can't think too deeply about, but this was, pleasantly, more substantial - filmworthy.

[chas_m]

FWIW, I like what I've seen of Torchwood so far very much indeed. X-Files never did it for me, hated MEN IN BLACK (very cute premise though), but this is fine *and* dandy (as Carlin might say).

Looking forward to the Sarah Jane Adventures too (kind of the other end of the scale from Torchwood).

[estnyc]

Magus, yeah, it's such a shame that a writer for Dr. Who actually sunk to having a character deliver an "explanation." Let's hope they return to the cinema verite style which marked the series' great years. You'd never catch Tom Baker explaining stuff! Except maybe, I dunno, every frakking episode?

Seriously, if you think explanations are a sign of terrible writing, maybe a whimsical science-fiction series which thrives on techno-gobbledygook might not be your cup of tea?

[MacMagus]

> You'd never catch Tom Baker explaining stuff! Except maybe, I dunno, every frakking episode?

I'm not saying that nobody else has ever stooped to such things in the history of Doctor Who, but they didn't do it habitually, nor so egregiously in the old series.

Also, one must differentiate between explaining a technical activity or the action of a complex plot device vs. exposition being used in lieu of characterization.

In the Baker era, characters would often explain what they were doing, but not WHY and HOW they were MOTIVATED to do it. Nor can I recall any incarnation of the Doctor where repetitive exposition on the background and motive of every character was in vogue.

Pertwee notoriously stuck a couple of forks in a cork, balanced it with a teacup and said that he was building a time flow barrier. He didn't then go on and explain that he knew how to make such things because he was abused as a child and ran away to join the Official Time Barrier League of Outer Gallifrey #9 and wanted to make psychic barriers because so many people had been hurt by badly maintained psyches, such as his great grandfather... etc, etc. Instead, he stuck forks in a cork as a reaction to a plot element and the invention followed as something authentic to the character by virtue of earlier character development. And yes, forks in a cork was a hard sell, but it fit with the story and he was a good enough actor that he carried it.

In this case, we've got a character saying (essentially), "I'm doing this because I'm insane as evidenced by this sound that's been in my head ever since I was a little kid where I was exposed to this terrible thing that has made me determined to act in this way..."

That prattle makes forks in a cork look like high art.


> if you think explanations are a sign of terrible writing, maybe a whimsical
> science-fiction series which thrives on techno-gobbledygook might not be your cup of
> tea?

I think that you're talking about a sub-genre of "fantasy," not "science fiction."

Science fiction does not rely on "techno-gobbledygook" to resolve a dramatic crisis.

[PeterB]

I thought this ep was very clever and well done, and yes, Carey Mulligan is very easy on the eyes...