Well, I've watched the two part Weeping Angels story and I'm going to be controversial, but I thought it was complete rubbish.
Over the past five years RTD's scripts have continuously been mocked by certain sections of fandom for having "unrealistic" ideas (as if the whole premise of the programme is the hight of "realism"
) or quick,
deux-ex-machina conclusions.
Now while I'll admit there was a problem with some of Rusty's endings, in the bigger picture I don't really feel that they harmed the story that much, because the bulk of Russell's scripts were about big audacious ideas and the common person. He tended to focus on both of these, and it was the clash between the two which drove his stories. And nobody - nobody wrote the common, everyday person as well as RTD. He could introduce a new character in only a few lines of dialogue, and yet at the same time define the character too. In a few quick moments, we could identify and feel for his characters.
Moffett on the other had has had a more sci-fi approach to his scripts. Russell's sci-fi could, as best be described as sci-fantasy, where as Steven's ideas often, like all good sci-fi authors - takes the science of today as his starting point and expands upon it. He also enjoys playing around with the central concept of the programme - time travel - and likes to explore the consequences and paradoxes that could exist should time travel be real.
However, while enjoying Blink enormously, I always felt that something didn't quite add-up. Many of the concepts of the Weeping Angels just don't make sense;
* Earth is teaming with sentient life - birds, insects, mammals... Would a Weeping Angel ever be unobserved? Is it really if any sentient life is watching a Weeping Angel turns to stone? What about an earwig?
* How did the Weeping Angels follow Sally to the police station? Yes, it was dark, and yes it was raining, but the police station is still in the centre of a town? Based on the fact that they appear on window ledges outside the station they flew, but they happened never to be observed? What would happen if they were seen in the air? Would they crash to the floor and shatter? More to the point, how did they carry the TARDIS back to the house unobserved?
* And if they do turn to stone, its not as if it is invulnerable. Why couldn't somebody break the statue while looking at it?
It may seem like I'm nit-picking, because few if any of these ideas are apparent as you watch the story and are caught up in the drama (although I did wonder about the last one), but Steven's Weeping Angel concept is, at the end of the day, no more "realistic" than, say, RTDs idea of making everybody on Earth into the Master.
I think The Time of Angels and Flesh and Stone failed for me for so many reasons.
I feel it diluted or removed everything that was appealing about the Weeping Angels. I can think of no reason why they should have been turned into nothing more than common monsters, who snap people's necks. In Blink the Angels have an original MO, now they're aim is just like any other marauding monster.
And then we have the concept that an image of an Angel becomes an Angel. What? Really? How did they get this totally unscientific and seemingly random ability?
That idea is such a big ask to accept, its no different than Rose absorbing the Time Vortex and destroying the Daleks or The Doctor tapping into the psychic power of mankind to rejuvenate himself. At least Russell's
deux-ex-machina endings had some foreshadowing before hand, no matter how slight. And yet, somehow, I don't think those fans so vocal about Russell's "arbitrary" storytelling will be as harsh on Steven.
It doesn't even make sense in the story - why would a collector have a Weeping Angel in his collection if he couldn't look at it or see images of it? OK, so you may point out the whole idea of the Angel being captured was a ruse so it could crash the ship into the Maze of the Dead, but again, that's a really big ask to accept too.
In Blink the Angels seemed to have the power to turn out light-bulbs. I could accept that, but here we see them "deadlocking" doors where there is no "deadlock" mechanism, controlling video playback devices, opening doors which have been sealed with magnetic clamps which should keep anything out... It appears the Angels have become capable of doing just about anything they want.
Finally, the story seems to throw away the most unique thing about the Weeping Angels - we never see them covering their faces. In Blink the whole resolution revolves around the fact that even they cannot look at each other, but here we have hundreds, perhaps thousands of Angels and they never take the time to cover their eyes. I know some will point out that they're always in an environment which could, at some point, be plunged into darkness, but I'm not sure that's 100% true. The Weeping Angels are called that because they cover their eyes, and here, we don't see it.
I also felt the whole story was far to serious for my liking. There was humour, but it didn't always work for me. When watching the story, it just didn't feel like a Doctor Who story. It was something which could, at a pinch, be done on Stargate or one of the newer Star Treks.
That's not to say the two episodes were without merit. The direction was assured, some of Steven's ideas were pure, true, sci-fi (such as his playing with gravity) or unique and original (such as his vision of the Church in the future). And the climax was incredibly clever and could in no way be classed as a RTD ending.
(Although, I suppose it could be argued it was convenient the crack appeared in that position, and was so big and hungry)
Overall, I've been disappointed with this year so far. Matt Smith has grown on me - I love the business he does with his hands/arms sometimes, he sort of reminds me of Magnus Pyke. To know that these were the first two episodes he filmed as the Doctor really does show what a true talent he is. Meanwhile, Amy is probably the companion with the most back story ever seen in the programme, and continues to delight. But I can't help thinking something is missing - that special little something that lets us know that we're watching Doctor Who. Something a little bonkers, a little eccentric, a little audacious and a little common and down to Earth.
Oh well, as predicted, many do like it, including The Guardian which calls it the best ever Doctor Who story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/ ... -and-stone Review contains major spoilers.
)
I can't help be apprehensive at this news - I think its pretty clear that Wales will no longer be the location of the series, losing (perhaps) characters like Rhys and (most likely) characters like Office Andy or Billis Manger who demands a return match with the team on screen, but also losing a major part of its appeal IMO. Shows like Torchwood are ten-a-penny; the X-Files, Fringe, Warehouse 13... all are similar to Torchwood. But the location somehow made the show. In some respects, yes it was silly and somewhat camp that Cardiff should have so many extra-terrestrial threats, rift or no rift. And even when looking at the bigger picture such as Children of Earth, the British sensibilities of the programme still made it unique - Children of Earth was just as much of a dialogue driven political thriller than a science-fiction action series.