Doctor Who 60th Anniversary Specials [[SPOILERS!!]]

[Morrus]

Also the bi-generation seemed to be just "because", no real explanation of why it happened based on what was going on. No real thematics for why this regeneration was different.

Ironically give that you are bemoaning the lack of cleverness, I think is this an example of something that may have been too clever, which made you miss it. RTD (and indeed Moffat) like to bury plot points in fast conversations.

In the previous episode the Doctor invoked a myth (the salt) at the edge of the universe where the boundaries were thin. This let myths into the universe.

The Toymaker was the first to cross into the universe. The Doctor realised what he’d done and mentioned it in the episode -- "Because I got clever, didn't I? I cast that salt at the edge of the universe. I played a game and let him in."

Bigeneration was an old time lord myth. “Bi-generation. I have bi-generated! There's no such thing. Bi-generation is supposed to be a myth, but… look at me.” Never happened before. Isn't supposed to be possible. Came true.

Goblins are a myth (they even call it out in the song -- "He’s not a myth, he’s an actual thing!"). Came true.

The theme for this season is that myths are coming true. Prompted by the Doctor’s actions in Wild Blue Yonder.

You have to listen for it but it’s all there and clearly explained.

(It’s also part of RTD’s desire to add more fantastical elements to the show, which is why he’s added this breakdown of the sci-fi/fantasy barrier).

I'm not sure how I feel about this yet. I like Who at least pretending to be sci-fi and I’m not sure I want it to become fantasy. But it is all there.

 

[overgeeked]

What I find weird is that RTD seems to be riffing on Moffat’s early time as show runner. Matt Smith came in as the cheerful, fun, and funny Doctor after the glum end of David Tennant. Now Ncuti Gatwa comes in as the cheerful, fun, and funny Doctor after David Tennant’s second go as the Doctor. Smith’s early era also has intentional fairy tale and fantasy elements dropped in, much like the current era so far. As mentioned up thread, Moffat used River and Pond, RTD has a character named Mrs. Flood. If RTD isn’t taking the piss he’s at least giving a nudge and wink to Moffat.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Neil Patrick Harris was fantastic and full of style and fun characterization, but the whole games scenes were really let down by the writing.

Instead of figuring out complex puzzles and coming up with a clever workaround to beat the Toymaker's catch 22 game culmination, the games are simply high card draw luck and catch. Zero cleverness, zero trap setup by the toymaker that is revealed at the end and subverted by the Doctor.

Also the bi-generation seemed to be just "because", no real explanation of why it happened based on what was going on. No real thematics for why this regeneration was different.

I really like cleverness in Who. I have been disappointed in the Whittaker writing solutions of saying the Doctor is clever and then bam win result with no actual cleverness. Here they skipped even the pretense of cleverness. That aspect was hugely disappointing.

Still NPH goofing around with different outrageous accents in different time periods was fun.

My favorite part was the Toymaker explaining to Donna the fates of previous companions. "Well that's all right then!" Really makes you think about how these things tend to go.

 

[Staffan]

They make a point of going through the Doctor's MANY losses. All the companions who've died while "on the job". And the point of the story is that the Doctor never grieved. He just keeps running faster and faster, never actually escaping anything. Never dealing with anything. Always just moving forward.

Reminds me of some lyrics from Chess, which is oddly appropriate to the Toymaker:

Don't get me wrong
I'm not complaining
Times have been good
Fast, entertaining
But what's the point
If I'm concealing
Not only love
All other feeling?

Now I'm
Where I want to be
And who I want to be
And doing what I
Always said I would
And yet I feel
I haven't won at all
I'm running for my life
And never looking back
In case there's someone
Right behind to shoot me down
And say he always knew I'd fall
When the crazy wheel
Slows down
Where will I be?
Back where I started

 

[Umbran]

I have only watched the first, so I'm not reading the thread in whole yet. However...

They spend the whole show setting up the point that surface appearance doesn't tell you the whole story - the big bug aliens are the good guys, the cute fuzzy thing is the bad guy. The UNIT scientist has concealed weapons. Donna's daughter, and Donna herself, have hidden depths. And all should be respected, in part because you don't know what's underneath.

Then, they toss that away with, "We can do something no male-presenting Timelord could ever do! Give power away!" Because, after all the defiance of stereotype, we lean into a stereotype for the cheap solution to the problem.

I am... somewhere between "not impressed" and "disappointed".

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have only watched the first, so I'm not reading the thread in whole yet. However...

They spend the whole show setting up the point that surface appearance doesn't tell you the whole story - the big bug aliens are the good guys, the cute fuzzy thing is the bad guy. The UNIT scientist has concealed weapons. Donna's daughter, and Donna herself, have hidden depths. And all should be respected, in part because you don't know what's underneath.

Then, they toss that away with, "We can do something no male-presenting Timelord could ever do! Give power away!" Because, after all the defiance of stereotype, we lean into a stereotype for the cheap solution to the problem.

I am... somewhere between "not impressed" and "disappointed".

Yeah, they really seemed to step all over their point. This is why I feel that episode in particular was social agenda heavy.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, they really seemed to step all over their point. This is why I feel that episode in particular was social agenda heavy.

Well, being social agenda heavy is not strange for Doctor Who.

Stumbling on their point isn't a sign that it was agenda-heavy. It is a sign of clumsiness, or lack of awareness.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, being social agenda heavy is not strange for Doctor Who.

Stumbling on their point isn't a sign that it was agenda-heavy. It is a sign of clumsiness, or lack of awareness.

Fair enough. I believe that the episode in question was social agenda heavy (more so and more in-your-face than the other specials, but from what I understand fairly common in 13's era) and that they actually stepped on their own point of diversity, probably without realizing it because of said agenda.

For the record, I found the second and third specials far more interesting in general, and I haven't seen 15's first outing yet.

 

[overgeeked]

If you think new Doctor Who (2005+) has an agenda, you either didn't watch or weren't paying attention when old Doctor Who (1963-1989) was on. And you definitely weren't paying attention during the Wilderness Years (1989-2005) with the endless novels and Big Finish audio.

Complaining about the social agenda of Doctor Who is even more of a tell than complaining about the social agenda of Star Trek. Doctor Who has always...always...always been "social agenda heavy." It's a defining trait of the franchise. Only slightly less prominent than the Doctor and the TARDIS.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you think new Doctor Who (2005+) has an agenda, you either didn't watch or weren't paying attention when old Doctor Who (1963-1989) was on. And you definitely weren't paying attention during the Wilderness Years (1989-2005) with the endless novels and Big Finish audio.

Complaining about the social agenda of Doctor Who is even more of a tell than complaining about the social agenda of Star Trek. Doctor Who has always...always...always been "social agenda heavy." It's a defining trait of the franchise. Only slightly less prominent than the Doctor and the TARDIS.

I have no significant knowledge of either Classic Who or the wilderness years. And I never said anything about the presence or lack thereof of an agenda, but rather to the degree to which that agenda is thrust into the viewer's attention. I would in general prefer a bit more subtlety than was demonstrated in Special #1.