![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
capri0mniAnd yet, after the Christmas Special, there's virtual silence?!
So I guess I'll have to start (if you want to get something done, be ready to do it yourself :::Rhubarb, Peas, and Carrots:::)
I want to squee!
I want to Grumble!
So this will be a Squumble!
Anyway, I'll get the grumble out of the way:
There were no closed captions on the Amazon Video Stream!
I'm privileged enough to be able to understand audio, but I've gotten so used to having closed captions that not being able to read and listen at the same time is as distracting to my brain as a vague itch between my shoulder blades that I cannot reach. So that actually subtracted from my enjoyment of the episode, and it's frustrating because I'm sure that all of the creative, talented people who actually had to work to create this story had nothing to do with it.
Also, the trailer had captions, so I had no reason to suspect that the actual episode would not. And I didn't find out the truth until after I had already bought it.
I suspect something sloppy and irrational, like not double-checking the copyright license (I'd come across the tidbit, somewhere, somewhen, that captions are licensed separately from the audio -- talk about Humbug!).
And that has me worried about all of Series 10...
Okay, now for the squee.
First: this Christmas Special is just proof that "The Husbands of River Song" was actually the first episode of a two-parter.
Second: In the negative reviews I've seen, the biggest complaint has consistently been that this episode was not Christmassy enough. But frankly -- I found that aspect refreshing. This was, after all, an entire series of Doctor Who in just under an hour, so a strong story that gives us some character development for the Doctor was more important to me than a bare scaffolding on which to hang yet more Christmas baubles. I think (I hope) that this story finally brought the Doctor around to grieving his losses and accepting them -- not just River Song, but also Clara -- and Amy and Rory, too,* so that Moffat can wrap up his last year with a "clean, emotional, slate."**
Third: Overall, the emotional tone of this episode was just sweet -- the Harmony Shoal aliens, notwithstanding. I mean, a superhero with a nanny alter-ego. Also, a superhero whose code of ethics includes not causing grievous harm or destroying a city block just to stop the bad guys (are you listening, Marvel?)
Fourth: I was pleasantly surprised by Nardole -- that he was allowed to be actually competent, and point out where the Doctor is wrong -- and have the Doctor admit that Nardole was right, at the end.
Fifth and Finally: This was a story with a second hero (besides the Doctor) And the Doctor acknowledged that they were both on the same side from the very beginning. Hip-Hip-Hooray!
*(Wasn't that contraption on the roof in New York City his last ditch attempt to get around the "Temporal Anomaly" that "he caused," in order to get a chance to see Amy again -- having an innocent child swallow the last, key, element sure was a clever way to get the Doctor to stop trying on that front).
**Now, I want to check the TARDIS interior again, to see if that scribbled-on chalkboard is still there (Was that a visual metaphor, all along?).
So I guess I'll have to start (if you want to get something done, be ready to do it yourself :::Rhubarb, Peas, and Carrots:::)
I want to squee!
I want to Grumble!
So this will be a Squumble!
Anyway, I'll get the grumble out of the way:
There were no closed captions on the Amazon Video Stream!
I'm privileged enough to be able to understand audio, but I've gotten so used to having closed captions that not being able to read and listen at the same time is as distracting to my brain as a vague itch between my shoulder blades that I cannot reach. So that actually subtracted from my enjoyment of the episode, and it's frustrating because I'm sure that all of the creative, talented people who actually had to work to create this story had nothing to do with it.
Also, the trailer had captions, so I had no reason to suspect that the actual episode would not. And I didn't find out the truth until after I had already bought it.
I suspect something sloppy and irrational, like not double-checking the copyright license (I'd come across the tidbit, somewhere, somewhen, that captions are licensed separately from the audio -- talk about Humbug!).
And that has me worried about all of Series 10...
Okay, now for the squee.
First: this Christmas Special is just proof that "The Husbands of River Song" was actually the first episode of a two-parter.
Second: In the negative reviews I've seen, the biggest complaint has consistently been that this episode was not Christmassy enough. But frankly -- I found that aspect refreshing. This was, after all, an entire series of Doctor Who in just under an hour, so a strong story that gives us some character development for the Doctor was more important to me than a bare scaffolding on which to hang yet more Christmas baubles. I think (I hope) that this story finally brought the Doctor around to grieving his losses and accepting them -- not just River Song, but also Clara -- and Amy and Rory, too,* so that Moffat can wrap up his last year with a "clean, emotional, slate."**
Third: Overall, the emotional tone of this episode was just sweet -- the Harmony Shoal aliens, notwithstanding. I mean, a superhero with a nanny alter-ego. Also, a superhero whose code of ethics includes not causing grievous harm or destroying a city block just to stop the bad guys (are you listening, Marvel?)
Fourth: I was pleasantly surprised by Nardole -- that he was allowed to be actually competent, and point out where the Doctor is wrong -- and have the Doctor admit that Nardole was right, at the end.
Fifth and Finally: This was a story with a second hero (besides the Doctor) And the Doctor acknowledged that they were both on the same side from the very beginning. Hip-Hip-Hooray!
*(Wasn't that contraption on the roof in New York City his last ditch attempt to get around the "Temporal Anomaly" that "he caused," in order to get a chance to see Amy again -- having an innocent child swallow the last, key, element sure was a clever way to get the Doctor to stop trying on that front).
**Now, I want to check the TARDIS interior again, to see if that scribbled-on chalkboard is still there (Was that a visual metaphor, all along?).
no subject
Date: 2017-01-03 11:52 am (UTC)The tragedy, from the Doctor's perspective, was that there was so much temporal disturbance caused by his battles with the angels, that he would never be able to go back in time and visit them again whenever he missed them. So this was the closest thing he had to understanding death the way non-time traveling people do.
As I recall (from clips), the date on the tomb was somewhere around 1980s, which would mean that Amy and Rory were actually quite old when they died.
Chris Chibnail actually wrote an epilogue to "Angels Take Manhattan" that wraps up Amy's and Rory's peaceful post-Doctor life; it made it to the story board stage, but it was never filmed as part of the episode. The BBC did, however, adapt it as a video, narrated by Arthur Darvill, with the musical score, here: https://youtu.be/XWU6XL9xI4k
no subject
Date: 2017-01-03 08:14 pm (UTC)So it's just that one specific slice of time and space that the Doctor can't get into, and that they happen to have been relocated in?
It seems a bit of a contrived hand-wave, given the amount of temporal chaos in the series as a whole (sending people back in time as a means of separating them forever doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of a protagonist who travels in time on a day-to-day basis), but presumably for some reason they didn't feel that 'Amy and Rory settle down, have children and live happily without the Doctor' would be acceptable to the fans otherwise :-p
no subject
Date: 2017-01-03 09:23 pm (UTC)Like I've said (Somewhere), I stopped watching Doctor Who for myself halfway through Series One until Capaldi's debut in Series Eight, but continuing to "follow" the show, after a fashion, by way of spoiler reviews, clips posted online, and fandom debates.
I think (maybe) the ban of the Doctor from Manhattan-in-the-past may have been the result of some sort of temporal trap laid down by the Weeping Angels themselves.
I do prefer Moffat's writing than Davies's, on ethical grounds. But I totally agree with his critics' complaints that his plots have more twists (by several orders of magnitude) than is strictly necessary. ;-)