It is never a good sign when within one minute of an episode starting, you are shouting at the television: IS THAT IT??????? So it wasn't all a huge cover-up, we didn't get a regeneration, and the Doctor was saved in about ten seconds by his magic hand. Whoop-de-doop. I could almost see RTD sticking his tongue out at the fans. It was a silly get-out clause, a presentiment of what was to come.Basically, it comes down to this: I can judge this episode of Doctor Who on purely televisual terms, or I can judge it as a story. As a piece of television, it worked well. It was not one of those episodes where you keep checking your watch. There was lots of action, genuine suspense, and it was in the main well-paced, aside from a few GET ON WITH IT MOMENTS in the middle. We will achieve our evil plan! In a few minutes! Ha ha! Yes! Any minute now! Even so, I can't say that it was a bad episode.
But. BUT. Story-wise, it was unforgivable. Personally, I could live with the Donna storyline, though some of my fellow watchees (I am blogging live from an end-of-season Who, Cocktails and Curry party) were majorly disgruntled by the Donna "dying" fudge. I liked her becoming half Time Lord and enjoyed her and DT's impersonations of each other, and as I had already decided that she wasn't really going to die - too many people had mentioned it - I was genuinely moved by her being forced to go back to her pre-Doctor experience as a downtrodden but mouthy temp. On the other hand, given her cheerful phone-call at the end (see! she's happy!) and taken in conjunction with the Rose storyline, the Donna not dying trick was another cop-out sleight-of-hand.
The Rose storyline was outrageous. I wish I had never seen it. I want a Donna-style memory wipe just to forget it. In dramatic terms, it was like rewriting Romeo and Juliet so that just after Romeo has topped himself and Juliet has woken up, Romeo's identical twin brother saunters in and he and Juliet ride off into the sunset together. Rose did nothing in that episode, nothing except be captured. She didn't change the story progression one jot. The only reason she was brought back was to undermine the previous ending, which I loved. RTD brought her back because he didn't have the courage of his convictions. Her previous ending was sad but perfect. And now it has been ruined by some ridiculous McGuffin cloned Doctor. Almost as soon as he was created, I realised that Rose was going to get to keep him, and that pissed me off for the whole of the rest of the episode. Rose's original ending was sad. There's nothing wrong with that. That's what tragedy and self-sacrifice storylines are all about. Now I feel cheated of the tears I shed then. Why make it happy? What was the point of that? Why does everything have to be happy? In New Who world, nobody important ever really dies (Kylie, River Song, Captain Jack, Donna), and no emotional pain is ever final. Making Doctor 2 a bit grumpy and Rose miss Doctor mark 1 was an insulting, pathetic sop thrown to fans of the original ending, because we know that she'll get over it in five minutes flat when they are back home and bonking. It's a travesty of the only really decent bit of narrative arc that New Who has mustered over four seasons, and I am furious about it.
So off you go into your parallel universe RTD. You have squandered much of my goodwill. Now it's up to Moffatt to win it back.
Posts
49 comments:
I have to agree with you. Really disappointing, all spin, no trousers.
I'm not convinced that the show has had anything much to say after Season 1, with the exception of maybe half-a-dozen excellent episodes.
One additional gripe - Davros, wheeled (literally) back on, for what? Pure living on past glories, with no fresh insight into this character whatsoever. And while I'm on the subject, why-oh-why revive the stereotype of arch-villain with mobility issues (cf inventor of Cybermen, another paraplegic psychopath)?
But what's the use. Bring on Moffat.
A story tailored to the idea of the Daleks as metal dustbins.
I wholly agree with your opinions about Rose. She added nothing to the plot - nothing beyond her search for "her man". Although RTD has delivered some remarkably good episodes this season, I am glad he and his Rose-lurve have departed (for good, I hope).
I caught the first few sentences of your review before I watched it, because my blog-roll is set up that way. I quickly averted my eyes, but thought: "Uh-oh...Marie didn't like it..." And oh, how I wish you were wrong, and that I didn't agree with everything you wrote....
I've only just finished watching it (illegally) in Canada, and I feel --- deflated. I turned to Resident Fan Boy and said: "That was worse than The Last of the Time Lords." And that's saying something. As we watched the earth being towed back to its proper place (the one time that the Mill's CGI has looked cheesy, and what the hell was that music? ABBA?), RFB said: "Last year he was Jesus; this year he's God!" I'm amazed our computer survived this episode; I had to struggle not to throw things.
We were all worried about a re-set button and we got two: Donna and the Doctor + Rose. I'm scared to check YouTube ever again, because of the plethora of new Doctor/Rose videos (all set to songs by Avril Lavigne or Kelly Clarkson) that will result from that second kiss.
Pandering, sheer pandering...
Totally agree with you Marie. I also believe that now Rose has got him, she'll be fed up with him in five minutes flat. He's now human, he'll age and the things that made "her" doctor a charismatic, powerful and very attractive timelord don't exist in the new one. What's the point in a plain, everyday trip to the newsagent's for milk if you can't take the TARDIS? Where's the fun in that?
Bah, I say.
ohh an angry review...hmm ..
i wonder if you'd be interested though..
to answer my 16 questions about this episode? (some tongue in cheek) just to lighten your mood
thanks!
http://youwillbeforever.blogspot.com/2008/07/doctor-who-journeys-end-finale-loose.html
Ugh. Seconded all round. I cannot believe they actually put there, on the screen and into canon, that Rose would be happy with a photocopy of the Doctor. And why isn't this Doctor more angry about being banished to a parallel world without a TARDIS or any way to travel himself? If he really is the Doctor, as we and Rose are meant to believe, exactly the same with all the same memories and capabilities, why isn't he raging at being sidelined? Why isn't he distraught at the ending of his life as he 'knows' it like the Doctor is when he thinks he's lost the TARDIS in The Impossible Planet? Nyyyyyaaaarrrgh.
Could it be as simple as the fact that RTD is great at many things but simply cannot handle a series finale.
Forgive me if I have mis-remembered, but doesn't every finale so far have some stupid get out clause that makes everything OK?
I agree totally on the Rose scenario. And as I AM a twin, I can tell you categorically having been both sides of the I Love Your Twin so I Must Love You scenario, it don't work, never ever, EVER. As soon as lover realises that he/she is with the OTHER twin, not the original object of their affection it's bye bye pretty quickly.
And Rose's carbon copy isn't just not her Doc - only one heart for starters, he's part Catherine Tate, which is going to make him really different. So she'll be bored of him in five minutes.
I do wonder also whether he is going to degenerate quickly physically - if the change was going to kill Donna, why not the other way round?
I suspect Billie felt short changed too, from what she said on Confidential.
However.... I DID love the whole Doctor/Donna thing, Davros was brilliant, and I have to say in our house Dalek Caan got lots of laughs.
Sorry Persephone have to disagree about towing the Tardis home, I thought that was very funny and part of Who silly tradition. It's just the sort of thing that Tom Baker would have done if he'd had CGI...
The Donna story was really moving, but... I hate stories ending with people forgetting what's happened, so that annoyed me a bit.
I clearly didn't hate it as much as you all did, but Rose was the biggest waste for me. Bring her all that way and then do nothing with her. If I were the Doc I'd have given Martha my carbon copy and gone off with Rose again...
Oh and I was pleased that all the spoilers I'd seen this week (including Donna is the Rani) weren't true, even if it was a bit of a cheat not having David Tennant regenerate.
Marie, with any luck Stephen Moffat will get Neil Gaiman on board for the next series. Now wouldn't that be fun?
They fudged the regeneration, and it could never recover from that. Nobody wants DT to leave, but pretending that he might be was just a cynical ploy to draw in the viewers for this one episode. Which ironically leaves me less interested in the next series.
And as host of said cocktail, curry and Who night, I can honestly say that this episode was the reason the Cosmopolitains had to have such a lethal kick.
Marie, it doesn't sound like you *like* Doctor Who very much. Maybe you should stop watching it... or maybe you should think about being a bit less English about it and try to enjoy something that might be flawed...
While I have no idea what Marie's response to that will be, oh Anon - only someone who loves and has invested in those characters gets so upset and cheesed off when DW falls short of the heights we know it can hit :-)
Yes, it's often been mentioned how little I like Doctor Who.
I'm intrigued by your ascribing this to me being English, Anon. Care to elaborate? I should probably disclose at this point that I'm actually half French.
Aside from that, what bagelmouse said.
I thoroughly enjoyed every second of it. A credit to all involved.
Shame you didn't - don't spoil it for everyone else though!
What's with all the anonymous pro-Whovians all of a sudden? Your positive opinion is valid and welcome, but it would be polite to leave your name (or even a pseudonym). That way I can remember you and be friendly next time you stop on by.
I have to agree with the anons. You, and many of your readers, have barely had a positive word to say about Dr Who for ages, despite continuing to watch it every week, and seem determined to view it as some higher form of intelligence that never quite makes the grade than what it really is, which is basically a CGI-ed, sexed up kids programme with big words. Maybe stop trying to analyse and chategorize every tiny detail and enjoy it for what it is - entertainment. Or stop watching it.
Fair point Jen (and thanks for leaving your name). I think I'll address this in a longer post in a day or two, when more people have had a chance to read the last review (I usually get most of my Doctor Who related hits on Mondays.)
I think you're spot on here, especially on the travesty of the Rose storyline. But then, I write as a merely casual Who follower. And someone with a passionate interest in dramatic narrative.
Jen seems to think that children can be fobbed off with bad writing so long as they are being provided with "entertainment".
Children deserve better. And some of them can even spot it when they're being short-changed. I saw the latest Indiana Jones film with my 8-year old nephew, who succinctly pointed out that the ending made a nonsense of the whole film.
Jane Henry: "It's just the sort of thing that Tom Baker would have done if he'd had CGI..."
Only in the Graham Williams era, which was generally just as dumb.
Oh dear, Marie has expressed a less-than-enthusiastic opinion on Doctor Who in her own blog...
Here's how it usually works: Marie writes one of her witty reviews and we weigh in and say "Marie, I agree because..." or "Marie, I disagree because..." We don't disparage her for being English or being French or having black hair or looking good in horizontal stripes. (Well, okay, I do on that last bit, but I'm an envious cow.) In turn, she doesn't go after us for being Canadian or using an IE browser (at least not to our faces).
I think Jen and the two less courageous Anons can easily find a squee-fest about the latest episode elsewhere on the Internet. (Avoid Behind the Sofa; boy, are they ticked!) Not that Marie is incapable of squeefulness -- her review of Utopia last year springs to mind -- but come on, isn't dissecting and disagreeing about the latest Who a huge part of the fun?
Jen: "Maybe stop trying to analyse and chategorize every tiny detail and enjoy it for what it is - entertainment. Or stop watching it."
Those of us given to criticise one of our (once?) favourite shows are frequently told this sort of thing. To which I usually say, I keep watching it in the hopes of something better. And so far it has at least given us things like the Empty Child, Human Nature/Family Of Blood, Blink, Girl In The Fireplace, for example, which are enough to prove that it is capable of producing the goods.
That and when you've grown up with a show like that, it's a very very hard habit to break.
That's as brief an answer as I can offer.
alun: "Children deserve better."
Absolutely well said, alun.
It's worth adding that, sadly, it doesn't take any great analysis to spot these 'flaws'. More often than not, in my experience, they jump right out at me and consequently jump me right out of the action.
I agree on children deserving better and with Marie's points about RTD not killing his characters off properly. He should take lessons from Roald Dahl. Ever read the proper end to The Witches (not the ending Hollywood gave the film) - the little boy stays as a mouse. How long do mice live? he asks his gran. Oh two years, she says... Cripes. That's bleak.
Or how about children's classic Little Women? Does Beth really die my twelve year old asked anxiously. Yup. I said. She coped. As she's coped with the death of so many favourite characters in Harry Potter (inlcluding Fred Weasley. How could she kill Fred Weasley? Well, she did), and pretty much everyone gets to die in Darren Shan books.
Kids can take it. They experience death in their real lives (two of my children's friends have recently lost close relatives), and fiction/tv helps them deal with issues of grief in an often helpful way. I think ducking the issue because YOU don't want a companion to die is cheating really. And saying as I have heard RTD say, that you can't kill someone because it's a kid's show is nonsense. They've adultified it in all sorts of ways (anyone ever notice sex, apart from Leila, in the old Who? Never reared it's head, neither did any mention of homosexuality. All my kids know that Jack likes boys even if the little ones don't understand what that means)
But just as putting lots of sex in Torchwood doesn't make it adult tv, leaving proper death out of Dr Who doesn't necessarily mean it's for children.
Having said all that my kids all thought this was brilliant, and were very sad about Donna. I think the oldest was a bit peed off about Rose though...
Saf I really don't mind dumb/silly Who. It's part of the fun for me.
jane henry: "Saf I really don't mind dumb/silly Who. It's part of the fun for me."
Yes, I didn't mean to imply I had any total downer on dumb/silly. It's just that Doctor Who, for me, was always at its best when not being so overtly childish. The Graham Williams era was when it first started coming across that way, as I was growing up. (It's also when my parents gave up watching it with me, declaring it had become too silly and childish.) But now, I find it's more childish than ever, despite some of the 'adult' content thrown in.
And it's not even things like planet-tugging that are the main issue. There are deeper-seated problems when you have plots that make no sense, riddled with dramatic cheats and get-outs and so on and so on. The reason sex never reared its head in old Who was because its principle focus was on delivering sf adventure, while the efforts to adultify new Who have shifted that focus away from the sf adventure plot to 'how the Doctor, the companions and their families feel about it all'. Which is, on paper, worthy, but in practice it's shifted to such an extent that I get the impression we're no longer intended to care so much about the specifics of the sf adventure plot, and so apparently the laziest writing will do.
And that's a shame. There are shows and movies out there that do manage to strike that balance as genuine family viewing - something for everyone - but, to my mind, Doctor Who falls short in that regard, assuming that is still one of its goals.
Obviously that's not intended to take anything away from your enjoyment or that of your kids. It's great that it still works for them and yourself. I'm just hopeful that Steven Moffat will be able to strike that better balance.
Saf I can genuinely say that part of the fun of New Who for me and my husband (we were Jon Pertwee/Tom Baker generation) has been watching this with the kids. Dr Who is an event in our house and we all really enjoy it. I take your point about the lack of SF, and the more soapy type elements that RTD has introduced. But I do like the depth he's brought to Dr Who. Apart from Jon Pertwee looking a bit gutted when Jo left, I'd never got much of a sense of the Doctor's emotions. And really it must be pretty crap in a way, travelling through time and space with people who are all going to die before you. And David Tennant does do all that so well.
I'd like to see Stephen Moffat take it in a different direction now though, because we've probably done the lonely Time Lord thing to death.
Ooh I so wish I watched this programme just so that I could weigh in here! I'm missing out!
Let's just hope that things get really controversial on the next series of Strictly.
Pedro
jane henry: "we were Jon Pertwee/Tom Baker generation)"
Sounds like we hail from the same era :)
And let's not forget the profound sadness when Sarah Jane Smith departed. Or maybe that was just me ;)
Honestly, I'm all for the emotional depth in Doctor Who, and to be fair it was all there in my imagination when I was watching it as a kid, even if it wasn't up there on the screen. But these days, I'm sure it would - and does - be more convincing/have more impact for me when embedded in a nicely crafted story. The more questionable ploys and plot devices, for example, serve to jump me out of the story, leaving me less involved when it comes to the emo.
Possibly if I had kids, I might find the experience quite different, who can say. We would watch it with our cats, except they're generally off in the other room - perhaps deterred by Murray Gold's overly loud scores, I don't know :)
It's a tricky balance, criticising/commenting on shows you love and that you know other people love. I've been on the receiving end of criticism for what I say and - I admit - sometimes slung it out too. I've been moaned at and told to 'f- off' for being too positive (not generally on blogs but forums: gah, I think the word is to avoid unless you are hearty) and equally told off for pointing out flaws or just not liking something. But I've also gotten hacked off at people seeming to spend gratuitous amounts of time endlessly finding things wrong with the thing they (supposedly?) love whilst frustrated that expressing a critical opinion seemingly denies you the right to have ANY opinion.
I don't know the solution - I don't think there is one. Except that if you say things you have to expect people to disagree with you at times: and sometimes they will be articulate and engage in a debate, and sometimes they will come over as idiots. How we deal with them, regardless what we may think of them or their opinions, may best say what type of person we are. I probably try to be even-handed to the point of perhaps contradicting myself. I can live with that.
(Also, I don't want to 'defend' the anons, but there are sometimes problems on certain computer systems that make it more difficult/impossible to de-anonymise yourself.)
My position on good/bad/not being too critical is this:
I've seen The Sandbaggers. It's the best TV programme ever made. There is unlikely ever to be a programme as good ever again. Comparisons have shown me that no programmes made since have been as good.
So I can spend my whole life slagging everything else for not being as good as The Sandbaggers, or I can accept they're all going to be flawed in some way and try to find the positives that are there, while also pointing out the negatives that will inevitably be there. If I can't do that in the slightest, I stop watching – while leaving a warning to others in case they might be thinking of wasting time watching it themselves. otherwise, I'm going to be like one of those people who've had near-death experiences and mope around all the time wishing they were in Heaven.
Marie can be positive. She has been nice about episodes of Doctor Who before. She is therefore, by the rules of Anon and Anon, allowed to occasionally find an episode not quite as good as other episodes. I do hope that's not too controversial.
As for why she may - or may not – have liked it for a few weeks, potentially the fact the episodes have all been by the same writer might have something to do with it?
In general, though, my recommended advice, Anon and Anon, is that if you don't like what someone else says, it's much easier, less stressful and less time consuming to simply walk away and not to bother commenting. See how much more free time and life you'll have if you do...
I'm going to write more about this, but just a quick note re anonymity - not wanting to sign into Google aint no excuse. My Bro always comes up as "Anonymous" but he signs himself Bro. It works like this.
Marie
My wife is probably right - it's a children's show. But...it makes me laugh and (twice this week) cry and it's got an evolutionary history with which I grew up, so I'm emotionally attached to it. It can be disappointing, but, like your kids, you don't love it less for that, you wait for it to surprise and delight you, which it surely will. And as for now...I can't wait for The Return of the Cybermen!
Fair point about the signing off thing: I was just remembering occasions on MediumRob's place and others where folks have unintentionally not signed themselves in. It happens (not saying it did here with Anon and Anon).
It is one of the things about the internet (and blogging especially) that it is ALL about opinions. Hell, I read Behind the Sofa fairly regularly and one or two writers there aside I can pretty much guarantee that when RTD ups the WTF?! quotient its gonna get the posts and comment boxes alive with critical - and I mean CRITICAL - commentary. It isn't Outpost Gallifrey (which I know only by reputation for the volume and degree of bile) but BTS can feel like entering a hailstorm of bullets when you walk in.
Your review is still witty and well-written (as often are the BTS gang) - I just took a somewhat different view on the episode. I think as Persephone indicated that's what we're all entitled to!
Well here is my 2 penny worth
- disappointed that nobody got killed off (especially those annoying Torchwood types)but can see why not - having got everyone together to kill one assistant off would have totally messed up any kind of balance. I think killing donna would have only worked if there was no rose
- I thought the Davros - true soul of the Dr speech was great
- i thouhgt the donna ending was very moving and didnt see it as another Bobby ewing showre moment as Scott on his blog mentioned
- I though tthe guggenheim or whatever key was a good fit - convinced myself it was a rest button and was ready to scream how come the dr doesnt know about it at the tv
- The Rose thing was a waste of time - I agree this had run its course and bringing her back but then not knowing what to do with her ... i think RTD wanted Dr to have a full blown snog but didnt quite dare to do it with David t mark 1
- whats with all the saluting ... no need
- Having made my first point I should add my 7 year old loved it and did keep asking me "they wont die will they" - so I'm kind of glad noone did
Friend of rachel worth
Blimey - apols for not using preview, spell check or a basic ability to type
friend of rachel worth
I have to agree that this finale was really disappointing for me. Journeys end left me with a sort of empty feeling that I can't describe, and the whole Rose and second doctor forever and ever made me feel ill. Who would settle for a half Donna warmonger born in the midst of battle? And I thought part of the reason she fell in love with him in the first place was because of his mysterious ways and fantastic and magical life? She loved him, of course, but part of it was the excitement of traveling through time and space. So now what are the second doc and her going to do? Watch television? Give me a break. It was like RTD wanted to make everyone happy (except Donna apparently) that he forgot the part about making it good. The characters were squished in (what was the purpose of Jackie, Sarah Jane, and Mickey, again?) and it was just too long. At first I was excited about all the companions coming back, but after seeing this, I'm left feeling like it was all wrong. Rose's goodbye scene in Doomsday was beautiful, real, and well written. Why mess up a good thing?
Besides companions and goodbyes, there were other problems in Journeys End. Like Donna. Now don't get me wrong, I liked her becoming half timelord, and I thought that hers and second doc's initial interactions were cute, but how she saves the day? Please. So she absorbs some doctor mumbo jumbo, and suddenly she mumbles some techno crap and pushes a few buttons and the universe is saved and the Daleks are up in flames? RTD took the easy way out in a plot that he had written way in over his head.
But RTD is a good writer (see midnight, turn left), but he just doesn't know when or how to stop. Yes, he can give us a thrilling and suspenseful finale, but when it comes time for saving the day and farewells, his stuff just can't cut it. And not every finale in who is a bummer, but compared to the season one last episodes and the doomsday goodbye scene, Journeys End doesn't even come close.
--Madeleine
'Insulting', 'pathetic', unforgiveable', etc etc. Words you feel self righteously entitled to use about someone's work - but then you get a mildy critical response to your scathing observations, and get defensive about it. Utterly typical of online 'reviewers'. And this from a woman who in an interview, said she thought it was important to 'go through life without hurting people.' I'm sure you can justify it to yourself - in the same way you could probably characterise your sneery comments as being 'overexcited.' Or only being angry 'because you care.' I'm very amused too at the idea that one of your fellow opinion bloggers has - that if you don't like someone's opinion, you should 'walk away' and see 'how much free time and life you have.' How patronising. So, he gets to slag stuff off, and then loftily thinks other people should 'walk away' if they don't like it? Again - typical of online commentators. It's strange - I think there's a genuine debate somewhere to be had about critical roles and responsibility, but that kind of defensive narcissism just kills it stone dead. Shame, really.
If you had read my responses, Anonymous, (I'm assuimg that's you), you'd see that I'm planning to engag with this debate in a longer, more detailed post, which is what I am about to do. I still think it would be polite of you to identify yourself. You know an awful lot about me.
"if you don't like someone's opinion, you should 'walk away' and see 'how much free time and life you have.' How patronising."
It was supposed to be. Were you not getting that? Oh dear.
"So, he gets to slag stuff off, and then loftily thinks other people should 'walk away' if they don't like it? "
Yes. Just as if you were to write opinions on your anonymous web site and I didn't like them, I'd ignore your site and go away again. Simple really. Of course, I'd be entitled to go away onto my own blog and write my own views. Or I might explain why I disagreed with you. But I wouldn't be personally abusive to you. That's just trying to pick a fight, which is a very different thing from having a debate.
MediumRob, I've just had a look at your 'review blog'. You really can't tell the difference between criticism and abuse, and seem to think being personally vicious is entertaining. Again - so typical of online commentators. And no, I wouldn't pick a fight. There's really no point debating if your judgement is that skewed - reasoned argument would be a waste. And Woman who Talked too Much - are you sure that the critical comments people have made about your work are as unpleasant as the comments you publicly make yourself about others?
"MediumRob, I've just had a look at your 'review blog'. You really can't tell the difference between criticism and abuse, and seem to think being personally vicious is entertaining. Again - so typical of online commentators. And no, I wouldn't pick a fight. There's really no point debating if your judgement is that skewed - reasoned argument would be a waste."
Hmm, I do not think you spent very much time on my blog, if you came to those conclusions. I would be interested in the instances of 'personal viciousness' that you suggest are there.
And since you are the guardian of our morality and our conscience, surely it's your duty to let us know these things so we can improve ourselves or else you're a negligent god?
Maybe you could also explain your ideas of what criticism is to help us all? So far you seem to have suggested that I'm incapable of reasoned argument and accused others of 'defensive narcissism', among other things, which sound very much like both personal abuse and picking a fight. Maybe you have a blog or a web site somewhere where you have demonstrated the virtues you would like us all to embody. What would its URL be if you don't mind my asking?
Not quite sure how you came to the conclusion that mine is a 'review blog', either, if you gave it more than a cursory glance, given that there's the daily news, essays, promos, videos, etc.
Not quite sure also if you can tell the difference between criticism and abuse, either, given that eight of the front page articles at least are specific features of the blog dedicated to praising the work of particular people. Might it be you only took the time to look at the Doctor Who reviews and ignored all the ones that praised things or that were at variance with your ideas?
But, all the same, 'Whatever' as they say. If you don't like it, you don't like it. Others seem to enjoy it and if it's not your cup of tea, it's not your cup of tea. Just wanted to make sure that others who haven't been there didn't come away with the wrong impression of what I write...
Anon, your comments so far show just how little you get either Marie's or Rob's blogs, which entertain people on a daily basis. As Rob says, perhaps you might like to let us know where you hang out and we can all see how much you entertain others. Writing a personal response to a tv programme, book or film is a perfectly valid thing to do, and I would hardly describe either Rob or Marie as vicious. Entertaining, witty, yes, but never nasty. Or not that I've noticed.
"Entertaining, witty, yes, but never nasty. "
Aw, thanks!
I didn't respond to this last night because I couldn't quite articulate what I wanted to say, but I never come here or to Rob's blog and think oh aren't they being mean even when they've given a negative review. Granted using words like "puerile" may be strong, but I put it down to a tendency to hyperbolise about something you feel enthusiastic about. I share that tendency and am frequently misunderstood by people who think my reactions to things are extreme. They're not usually, I can just sometimes give an ott response. Marie blogged about this straight after the episode (and far more coherently then I could have done), so her reactions are immediate, and may possibly seem extreme to some. But nasty? Never.
I honestly didn't think it was that bad. Story wise there were more holes then a huge chunk of swiss cheese. Shadow Proclamation, the point to Rose and why was the moon still in place when the Earth arrived back in position (noted that's more astronomy then plot). But I agree with you on Rose and the Dr mark 2 - especially the original ending to Rose, which has now been destroyed forever (similar to the original beautiful, charming ending to Only Fools and Horses). However, being a children's program it was inventible that Donna was not going to die, and it was a brutal, bitter way of ending the character. Because the character we all got to explore and follow essentially did die leaving the original rough and ready 'jade' like character.
Great review though - oh and I'm 140 pages into God's behaving badly as well!
Being here in the states, I just this past Friday (Aug. 1) saw Journey's End. Overall, I loved it. However, I can also see why most of you feel the way you do about it after reading some of your comments.
In regards to Rose not really doing much... The small scene between Rose & the Doctor as she was explaining the "Dimension Cannon" was alone worth her reappearance. I though it was one of the greatest moment between them.
I can see how one may think that Rose & the DoctorDonna ending up together kind of negates the wonderful (and tragically sad) ending of Season 2. But - we get an ending that, to me, is equally as sad. The Doctor is sad, broken, and totally alone again. The scene between the Doctor and Donna's Grandfather was heartbreaking.
I LOVED the silliness of the Tardis towing the Earth back.
I do hope though that the Dalek threat is over for a while. I am getting a bit tired of them as the villains.
Anyway, I came upon this site by "Googling" Doctor Who Journey's End. Although I disagreed with your assessment of the episode, I'm really enjoying your blog. Consider yourself bookmarked.
Hey, I totally agree with you. It just felt weird. It didn't work, and such a simple choice hurt the longest running, most important arc of the new series. Good for you for writing about it, bad for RTD for doing it. Not sure I'd care for a Superman Comic that ended with Bizarro and Lois Lane moving to another universe to be together either...
Journeys End was ridiculous.
So many holes and nonsensical gibber jabber. What were they thinking?
Wish I didn't watch it....
Greetings, all. Sorry I'm so late to this party. I only just stumbled across this blog. Let me simply say this: although I see the points that many of you are making, about the seeming negation of the significance of earlier episodes, wherein the Doctor and Rose parted heartbreakingly, here are some points for you to consider. The Doctor has a superhuman intellect (a 12th-level intellect, if you will, for those of you comic-book and graphic-novel readers who are in-the-know about such things). Therefore, his duplicate would have been able to grasp the significance of BEING a duplicate (i.e., not being able to have the TARDIS, roam the universe, live indefinitely, etc.) almost instantaneously. And since, no matter how human he seems, he is NOT human, we shouldn't be surprised that he didn't waste time agonizing about it, as any of us might have. He would, however, have been almost immediately able to grasp the concept of embracing "the road not taken"--the chance to be with the woman he loves, Rose. Remember that even Time Lords don't get "do-overs" once certain things have happened. So the chance to, essentially, back up and take a different path that, under the right circumstances, he would have LOVED to have taken, must have gone a long way to compensate for what he lost to Doctor 1.0. As for the contention that Rose would have tired of her Doctor doppelganger in five minutes, (1) being an amalgamation of the Doctor and Donna Noble would have given him new personality traits for Rose to get to know--and she might have liked those traits. It might have been like discovering a new dimension to a person you already loved. Furthermore, (2) why should anyone assume that Doctor 1.1 would be forever planet-bound and ordinary (those being the supposed reasons that Rose would quickly tire of him)? Does anyone really believe that he and Rose would simply have settled down, in a house with a white picket fence, and had 2.5 kids? He still has the complete knowledge of the original Doctor. He could build another TARDIS if he wanted to! He may not live as long as the original, but no one should rule out the possibility of him popping up suddenly, in different areas of space or time--with his mate, Rose, in tow, at that. Even if he doesn't go that far, with that intellect and adventurous spirit, Rose (and we) should expect life with him to anything but dull. As to the denouement of "Journey's End" robbing the Doctor's and Rose's previous goodbye of its heart-wrenching significance, don't forget that (3) only the duplicate gets the happy ending; the original (the one we all care about) has to stand by and WATCH, as his doppelganger gets the woman he loves, AND the opportunity to put the heavy burden of cosmic responsibility down (and we DO acknowledge that the burden weighs heavily upon him, don't we?). In the end, the Doctor remains a tragic figure, more alone--and lonely--than ever. How's that for throwing a monkey wrench into the works? As for Donna, having to forget all the adventures, all the revelations, and all the personal growth that she had experienced, and go back to being the shallow, snarky gossip-monger that she had been before the Doctor came along...man, that TOTALLY SUCKED! It really was like dying, in a way. I mourn the loss of the person that she had become. Do you all still think that Russell T. Davies had no idea what he was doing with this episode? Or, is it possible that I have shown some of you the method in his madness? Thanks for throwing the party, Marie (even though I'm BEYOND egregiously late!). As another of your respondents said, consider yourself bookmarked. Feel free to stop by my station (http://charles-herrion.blogspot.com, entitled, "Miscellaneous Thoughts") and express your opinions. I invite the rest of you to drop by, as well. I could use the feedback. Thanks.
Charles
Post a Comment