|The Big Bang
||[Jun. 27th, 2010|10:42 am]
Amy died once, Rory died twice, the Doctor died twice. Or did they? It was very hard to tell. All that jumping about in time was amusing enough- like a classic farce with people popping in and out of doors- but highly confusing. In the end- anyway- they'd all come back to life, and were whizzing off on their adventures again as happy as Larry. |
When RTD was guiding the show people who died mostly stayed dead- or were regenerated- and people who had passed through traumatic events were marked by them. There was a relatively grown-up understanding of cause and effect. With Moffat eveyone is made of some indestructible material that bounces back into shape at the end of every pummeling. It's like a Tom and Jerry cartoon.
Think about Rory, for instance. He has spent 2000 years guarding the Pandorica. Imagine what that would mean- 2000 years of dedicated, monastic vigilance; consider the boredom, the hardship, the subterfuge. Would he really be the same silly old Rory at the end of it all? Moffat's writing is full of these grand, romantic, broad brush ideas- and he never works them through.
Ok, if it's going to be that sort of show, then fine- I like Tom and Jerry well enough- only don't expect me to care for the characters. And don't try to wring my withers with people dying pathetically when I know they're going to be dancing at a wedding in a scene or two.
No, but then he wasn't the same Rory at the beginning of it either, he was a replica. And after the Big Bang II spending nearly 2000 years guiding the Pandorica never happened.
I enjoyed it a lot (and last week's two) and the characters might even be started to gel in mind.
I don't think it's as simple as that. The Doctor- at the wedding dance- praises Rory as "the boy who waited"- so at some level the stuff he did as plastic Rory still counts.
I doubt if even Moffat really knows what was going on in that finale.
I would have loved a grim, 2000+ year old Roman Centurion Rory. I don't know why they didn't run with that, except possibly that fluffy modern Amy wouldn't have loved such a grim specter. More's the pity.
I think I spent the entire last two episodes blinking and thinking, "Was I supposed to care about that? Oh, look they're crying. Is that my cue that I should be moved? Oh hey, that's a clever plot device."
Probably not what most writers intend to evoke in their audiences.
The 2000 year old centurion was a great idea- lightly thrown aside.
There was plenty of cleverness in these final two episodes- but cleverness is all it was.
To be honest, the episode was all ideas... as if the writers sat around and said, "Wouldn't it be great if... and then this happened... and then this?"
...and then never fleshed it out beyond that. :P
For example they wheeled on all those classic enemies in the first episode- and then did nothing with them.
It seems as if this is going to be a light comedy Doctor- which is fine- it's just that we'd become used to something more.
I expected much finer things from Moffat- given that he wrote the best episodes of the RTD era- but he hasn't delivered yet.
Matt Smith is a charming character actor. I like him well enough, but he doesn't move me the way Eccleston and Tennant did.
2010-07-01 03:35 pm (UTC)
I actually rather liked the mythic flokloriness of it. I think a lot of the earlier shows were based more on archetypes than character.
I think Moffat is returning the show to its origins- and that Smith is closer to the Doctors of the "classic" era than he is to Eccleston and Tennant. In certain moods I might even be persuaded to accept this as a good thing. :)
2010-07-02 10:01 am (UTC)
It works very well on the level of pure story which I don't think is bad.
I do have my qualms about Smith purely on the basis I think he is a bit young to have much depth as an actor but I have high hopes for the next series