Doctor "Plotty Wotty"

Matt Smith in final performance as The Doctor

Alas, this speaks to me:

The Captain Kirk Problem: How Doctor Who Betrayed Matt Smith

By  Ted B. Kissell Dec 30 2013

With last week’s Christmas episode of Doctor Who, the bow tie has fallen to the floor of the TARDIS and we’ve said our final good night to the Raggedy Man. What is a fitting epitaph for Matt Smith, now that his run as the show's title character has ended?
I keep coming back to a sentiment that’s been cropping up for a while now: He deserved better.
The writing and plotting shortcomings of Doctor Who have been so glaring for the past couple of years that the 50-year-old BBC sci-fi show’s growing popularity in the United States (even as its ratings have sagged a bit in the U.K.) has to be attributable to something other than the stories. Most notably: the energy, charisma, and likability of the show’s leading man. After his somewhat stretched-out three-season-plus run, Smith tends to come in second in “Favorite Doctor” polls, behind his immediate predecessor, David Tennant. 

 I hesitate to say Tennent is overrated.  I do like Tennant, but I'll always be an Eccleston girl.  He sold the reintroduced Doctor as a troubled soul having lost all in the increasingly "plotty wotty" Time War, reconnected to his favorite planet.   Tennant's success and appeal are because of the foundation Eccleston laid.  And Tennant kept the energy of the rebooted series going with raw energy.

Because it wasn't due to the plotting and writing.  The Doctor destroys the career of Harriet Jones, not because she's wrong, but because he can?    Rose yo-yos back and forth: she's lost forever, wait no she's not...wait, yes she is.  For real this time.  Probably.  Donna, one of the most rocking companions ever, doesn't get this out.  In fact she gets robbed of everything.  If they wanted to write out her character sympathetically, why didn't they have her reconnect with that guy from the Library?  Instead she was used as a plot device...shades of future plots to come.

It took me a while warm to Smith as the Doctor.  Honestly I baulked at his youthful casting(yes, I've been among the fans mocking the casting direction, sardonically speculating Justin Beiber's casting as the12th Doctor).  It didn't help that Karen Gillan was cast as his new very youthful companion, giving the preview of 5 series an Afterschool Special feel.  Needless to say they all won me over in the end...Amy and Rory are awesome.  But again, it was down to the actors acting their hearts out, not solid writing.    

Someone ran out of ideas and the companions as plot devices took hold.  It started with Donna's disposal, then Amy, and Oswin.  Even River Song, my personal favorite character of the reboot, got this treatment, starting off solidly as a mysterious force of her own from the Doctor's future, then being reduced to a plot device to kill the Doctor.(Though I did enjoy her antics in "Let's Kill Hitler").   Kissell examines Moffat view of the Doctor and finds it disturbing:

All incarnations of the Doctor have been at least a little bit arrogant, but they’ve also tempered that arrogance with varying degrees of humility, selflessness, and a sense of wonder. But if Moffat were running things, the Doctor would swagger, dammit.
Once Moffat took the reins, swagger he did—looking pretty sexy doing so, thanks to Smith’s performance. The first season rings with the sound of the Doctor telling people how awesome he is, and how scared they should be, because he’s awesome.
To the Atraxi in his first appearance: “Hello, I’m the Doctor. Basically, run.”
To the Weeping Angels: “There’s one thing you never put in a trap. If you’re smart, if you value your continued existence, if you’ve got any plans about seeing tomorrow, there’s one thing you never, ever put in a trap. … Me.”
And then, of course, his signature barrage of bluster, the “Hello, Stonehenge” speech from “The Pandorica Opens.” Since we, the audience, know that he’s ultimately going to prevail, these repeated instances of the 11th Doctor bragging on himself to a sky full of alien menace (which happens again in his farewell Christmas special) come off as bullying.

 I think Moffat's bravura heavy  interpretation of the character goes hand in hand with his treatment of companions as plot devices.  It's as if he's taking the idea that the companions humanize the Doctor's experience and running with it to the extreme:  the Doctor needs horrible, complicated things to happen to his companions to keep him in touch with his "humanity"(Galifeyinity? ).  Does Moffat see the Doctor as a "big damn hero" who needs a "damsel" in distress?    Because the series seems to be sliding in that direction.    

In spite of 60's television drama devices(screaming dramatically as the episode ended in a cliff hanger) Doctor Who has always had spirited companions who were people in their own right. Remember Barbara Wright running Daleks off the road in a big damn truck?    Or Jamie, one of the best studies in culture shock.   Then there was Tegan who could not be shut up.  This isn't counting the more well known companions like Leela and Sara Jane(who also could not be shut up).  They weren't "plotty wotty" devices.  

Why to I keep using that phrase?  Blame Ted, who apparently invented it(and I so wish I had beat him to it):

The entirety of Season Six is when Moffat’s fascination for plot twists and open-ended mysteries (in our house, we describe this unfortunate tendency as “plotty-wotty”) took over the show, and the whole product suffered.

Perhaps Moffat thought by building companions into the plot he was making them more interesting.  Sadly all it does is reduce them to objects to be manipulated by the Doctor's well meaning whims.
What's disappointing is this plotting comes from the man who gave us my favorite Nu Who eps, The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances.    After the bland resolution of Season Six (which started strong and full of promise), I can only conclude that Moffat, as talented as he is writing single stories, does not have equal ability with story arcs.

Or perhaps he just doesn't understand the Doctor.  While there are as many interpretations of the character as there are fans, I agree with Kissell  the tone of Moffat's Doctor is out of step with the characters' history as humanitarian (sentientarian?): irascible, stubborn, egotistical and, yes, on occasion arrogant, but all for the cause of justice.

And, for all the limits of Moffat's plotting,  Matt Smith's performance nonetheless was able to communicate the Doctor's humanitarianism.  As dubious as I was about his casting, he won me over in the end.

Farewell.

Goodbye, Ebert....

"He's dead, Jim."

It's so sad.  I was reading about him the other day, and how cancer had basically destroyed his face:


http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/roger-ebert-dies-70-following-battle-cancer-194457663.html

Famed movie critic Roger Ebert died Thursday in Chicago after battling cancer. He was 70.

An opinionated writer, but also a movie fan, Ebert reviewed films for the Chicago Sun-Times for 46 years. He was perhaps best known, however, for his 31 years reviewing films on television.

Ebert experienced health problems over the past ten years, suffering illnesses including thyroid cancer and cancer of the salivary gland. In 2006 he lost part of his lower jaw, but -- as his obituary in the Sun-Times points out -- it didn't drive him out of the spotlight.

I remember fondly looking forward to his reviews, and he was almost never off.  If he panned something I knew it was dreck.    And he had the courage to pan hard...the worst from Ebert?  No stars. I loved him for that.

Ironically, for years I never knew what he looked like, having never followed his TV program:

Fresh off the heels of his Pulitzer, Ebert launched his television show -- along with Gene Siskel (who died in 1999) -- the same year he was honored with the esteemed writing award. It started as a local Chicago show, but its popularity eventually pushed it into the national spotlight, making the duo's famed "thumbs up, thumbs down" a household gesture.

 I just knew Ebert = Good Movie Reviews.   The first time I put the two together was reading about his new prosthesis:

Renowned movie critic Roger Ebert returned to the small screen to talk about the big screen over the weekend in the new show "Roger Ebert Presents At the Movies" looking much different than he did the last time he gave one of his famous "thumbs up/thumbs down" ratings several years ago.
Ebert, who lost the lower part of his jaw and his voice box after complications from thyroid and salivary gland cancer, appeared in a segment at the end of the show with his new prosthetic chin and an artificial voice in place of what he lost.

 "Ebert, Ebert," I said to myself,  "That's not the same Ebert who reviews movies, is it?"

Well, of course it was.  Then I felt devastated for him, and glad I hadn't heard about the surgery until after the prosthetic was made.  

But he didn't let cancer stop him from doing what he loved.

Good bye, Mr. Ebert.  You will be missed.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters Review...sorta

If you can review a film after watching 15 minutes, 20 max.

What was wrong?  Gods know.....  It's not like it didn't have potential.  There's quirky bits and quasi anachronisms:  repeating crossbows, rifle bored revolvers centuries before the Napoleonic wars, a geeky fan boy making a comic of our heroes on parchment...  Played right, in the right hands, this would have been a fun, action packed, adventure/horror romp.  Instead it was a plodding...something.  Revenge film?   Medieval sorta super hero Avengers?

It opens with a variation of the story we're familiar with, the kids being dumped in the woods  by the apparently heartless dad.(It will not surprise me if this is a twist all la he did it to protect them or some such, if I'd had the fortitude to watch to the end), After surviving their encounter and dispatching the witch, we fast forward, with the help of nifty woodcut inspired animation, to the present where Hans and Gret are all grown up ass kicking witch killers.

Let's be clear to pagan folk, in exactly the way the move wasn't:  the witches aren't actually human.  Even though they all appear to be female, and for reasons never quite explained, want to kidnap/kill human children.  They aren't aliens.  They are evil faerie folk, which would have some legendary basis.   It doesn't appear the writers know what they are, or haven't told the audience in the first 15 minutes, not even when G and H are explaining things to the mayor(deputy mayor?) who hired them.  This is usually where the info dump comes.  So there's just this  random threat of nasty looking women(demons?), with magical powers who can't think of anything to do with them except kidnap/kill/eat kids.  Uh huh.     

And they're all hideous.  The one woman G and H rescue from being mistaken for a witch and about to be executed by mob, is, of course, pretty.  Hmmm.  Not picking that one up....

I wasn't looking for the depth of the Lord of the Rings here.  A light engaging action film would have been fine.  But even shallow films need to emotionally connect with the audience.  Except for the misguided amateurs who got slaughtered, I wasn't connecting with anyone.   H?  Nothing wrong with him, just a bit wooden.  G? Nothing wrong with her; again just a bit wooden, though not as much as H.  That could have been fine if that was their public faces and we got a more intimate view of them in private:  how their anger at being abandoned affected them, their personal goals, etc.  Neither appear to have children, a bit odd given the time period, human nature and the lack of contraceptives. 
In fact that's probably the most glaring omission in a film whose plot is about these heroes who save kids from witches: where are the children?  Any children?  The tearful reunions of the rescued? In the crowd scenes?  

I watched the movie 5 minutes longer than I wanted to, trying to figure out why it was so bad.  And the answer is it has the emotional range of a turnip.   What they are fighting, how they are fighting is presented, maybe over presented.  What they are fighting for  isn't:  safe communities, a country and people they care for, the honor, gratitude, and yes, money, or the masses.  A couple of panoramic vistas of where they were:  tall alpine mountains of Grimm legend in the background would have done wonders for setting the tone and giving the experience depth even without changing the characters as written.

Alas.  Maybe they couldn't afford it.  All I wanted was a  light film to pass the time while I ate dinner.  I wasn't planning to write a review.   At least I didn't pay for it.

Once Upon a Time: The Cricket Game Review

I always know when people lie...
but the writers forgot so this might get messy...

I've been enjoying Once Upon a Time since I discovered a reference to it via my interest in Fables.

Initially I was wroth..

."Who are these people what dare to make a TV series about Fairytale Characters in the Real World and not adapt Fables to the screen?  Grr...I suspect dishonorable motives!"

Which might still be true on the part of the executives, but I've been won over by the producers and writers who swear up and down they knew nothing of Willingham's work.  I could believe this--I've written things for years cloistered from the fan community.  However I reserve judgement about the executives who I have a hard time believing would take a chance on a fantasy property without knowing there is a fanbase for this theme AND knowing who built it.  So thank you Willingham for making Once Upon A Time possible as a TV series.

SPOILERS.

The series centers on character from well known fairytales: Snow White, The Evil Queen(Regina), Red Ridding Hood, Rumpelstiltskin, Beauty(Belle), Prince Charming and others.  Because Regina has never gotten over Snow White beating her out  in the Fairytale Fairest of Them All Competition--plus Snow accidentally getting Regina's BF killed when she was a kid, oops--Regina finally has her revenge by destroying the Homelands(Willingham's phraseology) and sending everyone to A World Without Magic aka a World with No Happy Endings, aka a picturesque  fictitious town on the east coast called  Storybrook.  It's not too miserable(Regina has to live there), except no one knows who they are with the exception of Regina, and we later find Rumpelstiltskin(Mr. Gold). Everyone happily lives as muggles, except Henry, Regina's adopted son who knows the Truth and sets out to find his real mum, Emma Swan,  a bailbond/bounty hunter who has the ability to know when someone is lying.  Henry is also convinced she is the Hero who will save the town.  This forms the story arc of the first series which is well done.  I eagerly looked forward to the second Season.

The second season started out solid, picking up after everyone remembers who they are.  Karma's a bitch, chickens come home to roost, and new developments arise.  Then the series takes a risk with Regina pulling an Angel , seeking redemption.  This can be tedious in the hands of the best writers.  Unwatchable in the hands of incompetent or naive writers.  Even Joss Whedon and Co, writing Angel and Buffy in my opinion averaged okay with the redemption themes.   And Regina doesn't have Angel's excuse of actually being a different person(Angelus) from the one who did all those horrid things.

There is a way to deal with this, properly deal with it: Regina can say she wants to be Good, but she has to allow people will suspect her motives.  Furthermore, she must allow some people will take years before they believe it, and, even if it's true, some people will NEVER forgive her.  And she has to have the sober humility to accept that they have a right to do that and she will have to live with it for the rest of her life.

This is how it is is reality, but is almost never done in TV.   Writers, producers or someone in the process is uncomfortable with Good characters failing to forgive all but the worst monsters. Hollywood culture has some very wooly thinking going on.  Or perhaps they're uncomfortable with hard truths in a contemporary setting.  I saw this in Buffy the year(Fifth Season) they pulled out of their asses that 'the Slayer never kills humans'.

Bollox.  (Warning fan mini rant ahead)

Patrice, the assassin from the Order of Taraka was killed in the fracas with Kendra the Slayer.

Buffy kicked numerous Knights of Byzantium of the top of the caravan, and they were nominally good guys!  What do you think is going to happen to someone falling off the top of a moving caravan, weighed down with armor, with no helmet?  The Slayer never kills humans except accidentally?  Didn't they give Faith a ton of grief about that?   And it's completely contradicted by the story of Sonnenblume, the slayer who operated during Nazi Germany.  The Slayer only kills humans if they're Nazis?

The probable real reason 'the Slayer never kills humans' bollox was invented is the culture was uncomfortable writing stories where a  contemporary young woman could use lethal force on humans and not be accountable by the legal system.  This wouldn't have been a problem in a historical setting.  It also wouldn't have been a problem if the hero was a young man.   Human's were turned into mincemeat all the time in Highlander..in the modern world.   It was like some executive was trying to reframe our experience of Buffy, make the powerful young woman culturally "safer".

These are the same people(in the industry generally, not the Buffy producers) who I'm now to trust with an emotionally believable redemption of the Evil Queen, when so far all they've given us is, "I want to be good to impress Henry."  Excuse me while I reserve judgment.

Back to this Once Upon a Time episode...I don't suspect cowardly executive meddling so much as sloppy writing.  Everything was going okay...the redemption theme was handled unevenly(close ups of hurt Regina...please.  She was the EVIL Queen.  Grin and bear it or leave gracefully, woman)..and now someone has handed the writers the idiot ball...

MORE SPOILERS

I'll try to be brief.  There was a murder.  The viewer knows it's Cora, Regina's Mommy Dearest, shaping up to be this season's Big Bad.  Because Cora is a twisted bitch, she kills disguised as Regina hoping to frame her and drive her back into mummy's arms.   So far , fine.  When Regina is questioned by the sheriff, Emma, who has the ability to know when someone is lying.  But Emma doesn't use this talent, instead relying on Regina's reactions, which are spot on for an innocent person.

But that's not the point.  Regina is on social "probation"; considering her past, it is unreasonable to rely on her reactions which could be faked.   So just using Emma's lie detector superpower, we can KNOW Regina is innocent and everything else is a frame.   But the writers forgot EMMA KNOWS WHEN PEOPLE ARE LYING.  It's on her abc page people:

http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/once-upon-a-time/bios/emma-swan

Emma Swan

Played by Jennifer Morrison

Emma 101
- Daughter of Snow White and Prince Charming

- Biological mother of Henry

- Broke The Dark Curse

- Skeptical; knows when people lie

This was  a plot point early in season two between Emma and Hook.  Even AV Club..whose views I don't always agree with, but are generally astute observers... let this slide in their review:

Ruby tells Emma about the day before and Regina is brought into custody, but while Snow and Charming are certain of Regina’s guilt, Emma believes her when she says she’s innocent. Surely there’s some kind of truth spell they could use on Regina to find out if she’s lying, but magic is only used when it’s convenient on this show.

Italics mine.  They don't need a truth spell.  They have Emma, who's inherent power is knowing if someone's lying.  The writers or production crew got inexcusably sloppy.  And I will not spin some fanwank benefit of the doubt rubbish to help them save face.

I was holding out to the end of the EP, hoping for a twist, but only more idiot balls:  Regina reactively defends herself against a binding spell, and that's PROOF she's not serious about quitting magic.  Uh huh.  And I suppose picking up a bottle in a bar brawl is PROOF you've been drinking.  Okay, not the best metaphor(a person quitting drinking is unlikely to be in a bar)... but what was she supposed to do?  She can't turn off two decades of magical combat training overnight.

Sloppy writing can be the sign of impending doom.  If someone isn't watching continuity, someone isn't giving the show the resources it needs to succeed.  I will still watch it and hope for the best, but do so with my expectations lowered.