Doctor Who Thread VI: "The Very Model of a Gallifreyan Buccaneer" [SPOILERS]

[Aedilred]

Well of course it's entertainment. It's popularist sci fi. Everything I'm saying is within the context of Doctor Who. But the entertainment I get out of Seeds of Death or The War Games is more patient and atmospheric, like a good horror or thriller. The anniversary episodes are anathema to that. It's trying to be all spectacle and all action. On those terms Doctor Who is really rather rubbish, I think. It tends to accent the flaws at the expense of the undertones. Those undertones are what makes it entertaining.

I think you're trying to change the rules of the conversation, a bit. I'm not trying purport Doctor Who is high art, I never was. My original post defended Enlightenment and Four to Doomsday on the grounds that they're entertaining, after all. I don't enjoy the anniversary episodes. I'm not entertained by it. I find it awkward, creaky, self-indulgent, dull. I don't know what else to say. I feel what it aspires to be has been done substantially better elsewhere. Not true for Kinda or Castrovalva.

Well, your ranking system seemed to imply that they were being judged on artistic merit (you yourself used the phrase "work of art" at least twice in your analysis) and, by implication, those that you rate lower are those you felt failed artistically. Which, for me, is the wrong lens to use. It doesn't mean that I can't appreciate those that go above and beyond the call of duty, but that's very much a bonus, and even at its most artistic Who is still fairly pulpy.

It's something I find sometimes with other media. There are a number of films which I can recognise are very good, but fail in the mission of entertaining me; I spend the whole time admiring the execution from a distance rather than being compelled and drawn in. On the other hand there are films that are in many respects technically a complete mess but still rate amongst my favourites because I enjoy them. The same goes for music: I can recognise post-OKC Radiohead, or, on the classical side, Wagner, as extremely accomplished, and respect it for what it is, but if I'm listening for entertainment rather than edification, frankly I'd rather turn on Meat Loaf.

Multi-Doctor episodes, on the other hand, though they aim low and hit my entertainment buttons cheaply, do so fairly consistently, which is all I ask from them. Perhaps ironically, my least favourite multi-Doctor episode is The Two Doctors, which from a purely objective perspective is probably the best-conceived. But the others are fun and I can forgive much of the narcissism and any thinness in the structure or slackness of theme because, ultimately, I'm having a good time. I unashamedly love Day of the Doctor, largely for those reasons. So on the terms in which I'm interested in them, and on their own terms, I think they're pretty good and rate them highly, even if they are a little indulgent, both of themselves and of the dedicated fans (that said, I think you could do worse as an introduction to Who than Day of the Doctor.)

If you have different criteria for your entertainment, though, then that's your prerogative. I'm just wary of holding media to unreasonable standards and judging it for consistently falling short.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

Well, your ranking system seemed to imply that they were being judged on artistic merit (you yourself used the phrase "work of art" at least twice in your analysis) and, by implication, those that you rate lower are those you felt failed artistically. Which, for me, is the wrong lens to use. It doesn't mean that I can't appreciate those that go above and beyond the call of duty, but that's very much a bonus, and even at its most artistic Who is still fairly pulpy.

It's something I find sometimes with other media. There are a number of films which I can recognise are very good, but fail in the mission of entertaining me; I spend the whole time admiring the execution from a distance rather than being compelled and drawn in. On the other hand there are films that are in many respects technically a complete mess but still rate amongst my favourites because I enjoy them. The same goes for music: I can recognise post-OKC Radiohead, or, on the classical side, Wagner, as extremely accomplished, and respect it for what it is, but if I'm listening for entertainment rather than edification, frankly I'd rather turn on Meat Loaf.

Multi-Doctor episodes, on the other hand, though they aim low and hit my entertainment buttons cheaply, do so fairly consistently, which is all I ask from them. Perhaps ironically, my least favourite multi-Doctor episode is The Two Doctors, which from a purely objective perspective is probably the best-conceived. But the others are fun and I can forgive much of the narcissism and any thinness in the structure or slackness of theme because, ultimately, I'm having a good time. I unashamedly love Day of the Doctor, largely for those reasons. So on the terms in which I'm interested in them, and on their own terms, I think they're pretty good and rate them highly, even if they are a little indulgent, both of themselves and of the dedicated fans (that said, I think you could do worse as an introduction to Who than Day of the Doctor.)

If you have different criteria for your entertainment, though, then that's your prerogative. I'm just wary of holding media to unreasonable standards and judging it for consistently falling short.

I don't segregate artistic merit and entertainment value like that. For me, a lot of what entertains me has subtext and metaphor and literary appeal. I am entertained by those layers and that process. Doctor Who doesn't demonstrate is as potently as, say, James Joyce or David Lynch, but it would be flatly stupid of me to try to compare it on those terms. That doesn't mean they're not there, and I think it really undermines the effort to delegitimise them as "an extra layer to a pulp sci fi series". The insinuation is rather baffling, really. Doctor Who was intended to be an educational show, wasn't it? Doesn't that imply something a bit more contemplative than just spectacle? To me, those "layers" (as you describe them) are Doctor Who. The beating nucleus from which its identity comes from. The Daleks, the cybermen, the TARDIS, the anniversaries, the screwdriver, the fandom. That's all superficial. They're all surface objects that orbit around this guiding philosophy. When a Doctor Who serial fails to deliver on that central concept I think it's perfectly fair to chastise it for it. That's not applying a different set of standards, or whatever. Doctor Who's central appeal is in its subtext. Star Wars' central appeal is in its majesty and theatrics.

Doctor Who is, as you describe, a 'science fiction' and a 'children's show'. In the same way The Godfather is a 'gangster movie' or that Arrested Development is a 'sitcom'. The label "entertainment" does not shut off and isolate any and all traces of artistic merit from something. The very notion is deeply troubling, actually. It's the kind of thinking that lets us get complacent with mediocrity. It's the reason the entertainment industry is in such shambles right now. Entertainment is not, by definition, shallow, one-dimensional and superficial. Sometimes things are entertaining because underneath the surface there's a real and potent emotional or intellectual depth. Doctor Who is not "high art", no. I'll stand by that. High art has different priorities. But Doctor Who is art, and you can't forget that. So unreasonable standards nothing, just by the presence of episodes like The Aztecs and Doctor Who and the Silurians the bar has been set. This is the standard now. To complacently accept something that doesn't measure up just because "it amused you" is monstrously shallow. To assume that a franchise is sheer spectacle that merely tolerates the fleeting dalliances into artistry rubs uncomfortably close to insulting.

[Aedilred]

I think the educational angle of Who was largely sacrificed before the end of the first season, although it was among the original aims. And I think it'd be hard to argue that even really good Who episodes like Enlightenment actually serve the purpose of education anyway, except inasmuch as they're arguably setting an example of how to make good TV. In fact, The King's Demons arguably fulfilled that role rather better in that it at least introduced the audience to a revisionist historical perspective on King John.

That specific aside, I'm not a complete philistine. I do, on the whole, find media more enjoyable and worthwhile when they do more than the bare minimum to hit the right seratonin receptors (provided they do that as well). But I think there's a line somewhere between aspiration and expectation. There have been some excellent Who episodes by any criteria, but they are the exception rather than the rule and while it would be great if episodes aimed to meet that standard, I also think it's ultimately an unfair standard to hold them to. It's like judging all football players by the standard of Pelé: it can be done, but it's not representative of the reality. For me, perhaps, the standard an episode has to clear to tick the relevant boxes in my eyes is probably therefore rather lower, and given that a lot of Who is in some respects really rather poor, "better than average" isn't a particularly high bar in objective terms.

I long ago wrote off Who as not worth the effort to get worked up about when it makes missteps; it's something I approach with my brain, if not turned off completely, then at least idling, and what I demand from Who in order to get the expected level of satisfcation from it is relatively minimal in terms of technical/artistic quality. That doesn't mean I'm not delighted when it does push the boat out and produce an episode that is actually "a work of art", to use your terminology, but it's not what I'm there for and the absence of that doesn't trouble my as much as it might. And, debatably, I might prefer an episode that's fun but brainless over one that's technically accomplished but dull, because the former sits more squarely with why I'm engaging with it in the first place. Stuff like The Five Doctors or Day of the Doctor puts a smile on my face, and while the reasons for that might ultimately be pretty superficial, ultimately that's what I'm there for, so on my terms at least they succeed.

Perhaps junk food is an appropriate comparison. If I wanted nourishment I wouldn't be eating it in the first place: I'm only there because it satisfies a fairly primitive part of my brain or psyche. That doesn't mean that I can't appreciate good food, or that if I were served a better meal than I was expecting at a fast food joint I wouldn't be pleasantly surprised. But ultimately it's not why I'm there, and I'm not going to blame McDonalds for not providing me with a lobster thermidor when their speciality is burgers - indeed, I might be more disappointed if they served me an indifferent steak than if they just served a fairly decent burger. If I want steak I'll go somewhere else.

I mean, maybe this means I'm just more tolerant of mediocrity than you, or than I should be, which is something I do regret when I think about it in such terms, and I applaud those who are prepared to call out and challenge it where they find it, and demand that things be better. But without getting too dramatic about it, that process is also exhausting and after battering my head against it for much of my life I've largely now come to focus that frustration on a handful of subjects - those I care deeply about, those that are actually important, etc. - and put up with it elsewhere. Who falls squarely into the "elsewhere" category, and my expectations have been calibrated to match.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

I think the educational angle of Who was largely sacrificed before the end of the first season, although it was among the original aims. And I think it'd be hard to argue that even really good Who episodes like Enlightenment actually serve the purpose of education anyway, except inasmuch as they're arguably setting an example of how to make good TV. In fact, The King's Demons arguably fulfilled that role rather better in that it at least introduced the audience to a revisionist historical perspective on King John.

That specific aside, I'm not a complete philistine. I do, on the whole, find media more enjoyable and worthwhile when they do more than the bare minimum to hit the right seratonin receptors (provided they do that as well). But I think there's a line somewhere between aspiration and expectation. There have been some excellent Who episodes by any criteria, but they are the exception rather than the rule and while it would be great if episodes aimed to meet that standard, I also think it's ultimately an unfair standard to hold them to. It's like judging all football players by the standard of Pelé: it can be done, but it's not representative of the reality. For me, perhaps, the standard an episode has to clear to tick the relevant boxes in my eyes is probably therefore rather lower, and given that a lot of Who is in some respects really rather poor, "better than average" isn't a particularly high bar in objective terms.

I long ago wrote off Who as not worth the effort to get worked up about when it makes missteps; it's something I approach with my brain, if not turned off completely, then at least idling, and what I demand from Who in order to get the expected level of satisfcation from it is relatively minimal in terms of technical/artistic quality. That doesn't mean I'm not delighted when it does push the boat out and produce an episode that is actually "a work of art", to use your terminology, but it's not what I'm there for and the absence of that doesn't trouble my as much as it might. And, debatably, I might prefer an episode that's fun but brainless over one that's technically accomplished but dull, because the former sits more squarely with why I'm engaging with it in the first place. Stuff like The Five Doctors or Day of the Doctor puts a smile on my face, and while the reasons for that might ultimately be pretty superficial, ultimately that's what I'm there for, so on my terms at least they succeed.

Perhaps junk food is an appropriate comparison. If I wanted nourishment I wouldn't be eating it in the first place: I'm only there because it satisfies a fairly primitive part of my brain or psyche. That doesn't mean that I can't appreciate good food, or that if I were served a better meal than I was expecting at a fast food joint I wouldn't be pleasantly surprised. But ultimately it's not why I'm there, and I'm not going to blame McDonalds for not providing me with a lobster thermidor when their speciality is burgers - indeed, I might be more disappointed if they served me an indifferent steak than if they just served a fairly decent burger. If I want steak I'll go somewhere else.

I mean, maybe this means I'm just more tolerant of mediocrity than you, or than I should be, which is something I do regret when I think about it in such terms, and I applaud those who are prepared to call out and challenge it where they find it, and demand that things be better. But without getting too dramatic about it, that process is also exhausting and after battering my head against it for much of my life I've largely now come to focus that frustration on a handful of subjects - those I care deeply about, those that are actually important, etc. - and put up with it elsewhere. Who falls squarely into the "elsewhere" category, and my expectations have been calibrated to match.

That's all perfectly fine. What we both need is a bit of empathy. In my case I have to understand that what you find entertaining differs from me. If you would be good enough to extend the courtesy, understand that it's no effort on my part to demand more than just the surface. Heck, it isn't as though the themes and qualities of Castrovalva and Kinda are obscured under esoteric and arcane layers to begin with. In both cases they flatly come out and express it, so it's hardly the Herculean effort to unearth its appeal. But I digress.

As for the phrase 'work of art', I don't demand such a lofty goal from all of them. My usage of the term would be redundant if the lion's share of quality episodes were "works of art". It's a term I can comfortably use for The Aztecs because I feel it's worthy of that hyperbolic title.

I will admit to finding your McDonalds comparison a bit frustrating, though. Call me a fanboy, but I'd like to think Doctor Who has more to offer. I can't recall Star Trek, Star Wars or Marvel offering up something like Scherzo.

EDIT: It should be pointed out that Davison is not a great era to demonstrate the balance of my opinions in the show. I'm not kidding. It really was crap on one side and genius on the other. A Tom Baker writeup, now that would be balanced. But then it would require me to rewatch stuff like The Power of Kroll or Nightmare of Eden and I really don't wanna.

[Aedilred]

I finally caught up on the last series of Who, which I missed the first time round due to apathy and not being overly impressed with series 8 or the way things seemed to be headed. But in fact I think it's probably the strongest season of NuWho to date. Obviously it's ropey in places, because when can Who ever maintain consistency for long, but overall I'm pretty impressed. The move to multi-episode stories for the majority of the series works well and helps to stop the sense of rushed episodes (requiring a last minute hat-pull) you often get from NuWho: indeed, the only true one-parter of the season is also, I think, the weakest of the lot.

Whether this quality will be maintained, who knows.

[Eldan]

Dammit, Crunk, stop bringing up Scherzo all the time. I've been trying hard to forget that episode existed.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

Dammit, Crunk, stop bringing up Scherzo all the time. I've been trying hard to forget that episode existed.

Because it's bad, because it traumatised you or because of both?

Spoiler: Potentially relevant

Show

[Eldan]

Oh, it's amazingly written and acted. I just never want to think about it again.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

It's just about Eight and Charley going on a bit of a walk, holding hands, having a picnic and falling in lov̶͉̣̺͉̬͖͇̎̈́̔̆̀͊ë̸̢́ͣ́̀̋̔͌̒҉̣͉͍͖̻̹̺ͅ b̨̝̤̣̞̰̅̔̐̈̂́u̴̜̘̫̪̜̍́̉̓̈́̅̒t̷̡̛͕̮̹͚ͬͪ̄̅̊ͤ ̈̈ͣ͒͌̓ͧ͏͎̭̩̪͝ḯ̟̮̲̠̻̗̆ͥ̏͟ ͉͎̺̩̣̤̩̮ͩ͛͌ͫ͆̏ͦ̔l̴͉̙̻̭̺̝̄ͥ͌ͯͅͅő̧̜̀v̪͍̲̰̄̄̅̊ͭ̾̀͠͡ͅ ̙͉ĕ̢̩̱̣͆͗͆̆͝ ͎̣͎̊́ͣ̅ͣͦͯ͌͗͠ ỹ̝̈́͒͠͡o͓̹̯̻̯͓͔̔͊̄̇̓̿́͞u̴͎͚̽ͧͨ ̼̲͋͋ͪ̕͘b̸͙̠͈͗͊͜u̝̫͔̜̝̭͛̐̄̿̅ͮ͂ͨͅţ̜̖͚̥̜ͮ͑ͦ̊ ̛͓̬̗̗̝̆͐ͬͮ̇͆͗͟ͅ iͬͭͧ͊͛ͨ͂͏̶̝̬̝̤̜ ̘̮̩̦͎̬͑l̗̩̞͇̈ͣ͐ͬͥ̋̀̚ȯ̴̰͉̙ͤ͐̈ͭ̋̋̂̚̕͝ͅv̶͉̣̺͉̬̎̈́̔̆̀͊ ͖͇ë̸̢́ͣ́̀̋̔͌̒҉̣͉͍͖̻̹̺ͅ ̛̠͔̦͇̦̺̫̝͛̈́̉ y̛̗̺̣̹̠͔̐ͥͬ͒͋̇̓̽͂̀ǫ͈̝͈̼̞ͣ̂ͧ̆̋́̕ű̱͇̮̰̻̫̈́̂̈ͦ̊̔̀

s̗̖̺̖͉͕ì̩̹̥͍͈l͓L͎͈͉͙̜̻y̤̝̦̠̭͎̰ ̼̪̣̭̟
l̼͕̹̭̲̠ͅI̡͍tţ͔̳̭͕͇L̵͕̙̝̼͙̟͚e̟͘ ̩̼ͅg̢̻ì͖̦R̩̯̭̣l͓̭͇̱̖̜ ̼̜̙̟̥͖̜

ẖ̴̭̺̱͎e͍͖͓͎̥͡L̵̜̦͈͎͓̠͇P ̟̰̘͎
h҉̤E͇͔̣̤l̘͚̣̝ͅṕ̞͎̭̤̱̼?͈͇̣͍

[Eldan]

At least you can't put that sound in a post.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

At least you can't put that sound in a post.

It didn't frighten me nearly as much as those warped, choked "help me" cries off in the distance. They **** me up to this day. Pro tip; do not imagine them when you're alone at night and there are no other sounds around you.