Revisionist Viewing of the "New" Doctor Who Season 4 Finale

[Along with voicing my opinion, this entry definitely acts as a cheap ratings stunt]

The season 4 finale of the "New" Doctor Who that aired on the Sci-Fi Channel in the US last Friday night disappointed me quite a bit and really made me feel frustrated about Russell T Davies.

BEFORE MOVING ON, THOUGH, SPOILER WARNING. DON'T READ ON IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE EPISODE AND DON'T WANT ANYTHING SPOILED.

Essentially, the season finale felt like it ended with too much of a deus ex machina that made me feel cheated. The resolution of defeating the Daleks felt too easy.

I'm cool with the whole three Doctors thing, the original Doctor, Meta-Crisis Doctor and DoctorDonna. I'm even cool with the solution to the problem coming from the existence of three Doctors.

The following excerpt from an e-mail I sent to a friend voices my opinion about the element that caught my craw:

But yeah, this last finale was just too much deus ex machina for me. . .especially with the "master control panel" for the Daleks and Davros being at the doors of the TARDIS. What was up with that? And what is up with having that kind of thing? Sure, I can understand if Davros had one (once bitten, twice shy with his Daleks in the past rebelling), but to allow it to control Davros? What? What?! What?!?! But I think the main issue was that there was absolutely no reference or emphasis on the thing before they took control of the master control panel.

In other words, the lack of allusion to the control panel before DoctorDonna started fiddling with it. I think just having a character use or manipulate something in a scene, unless the sudden appearances of things is appropriate for the type of story told, especially when it becomes a vital object, breaks a rule of storytelling in some way. At least, it breaks a rule of engaging storytelling.

After some unconscious thinking on the matter, though, I came up with the following revisionist explanation that I e-mailed my friend:

Maybe Donna got a glimpse of the master control panel while in the TARDIS. It didn't really strike her as anything important while she was just normal, banal Donna, but once she became Doctor-Donna, she made sense of that memory of the master control. Also, did the Meta-Crisis Doctor also receive memories from Donna. . .so they could both actually remember the control panel.

So at least the Meta-Crisis Doctor programs the coordinates for the TARDIS's landing on the Dalek ship to be right at the MASTER CONTROL. Maybe he doesn't have everything planned, but that gun thing they had put together was really just a diversion. Being born in war and willing to commit genocide is kind of a sign that he was willing to sacrifice Donna on a hunch that if she gets zapped by Davros, she would become Doctor-Donna and figure out bunches of stuff out on her own.

And so after getting zapped by Davros and becoming Doctor-Donna, she remembers the MASTER CONTROL, which isn't necessarily a MASTER CONTROL but could be something else, but she's Doctor-Donna and can quickly move wires around & stuff at Time Lord cognitive speed to create a MASTER CONTROL. And then we know the rest after that.

Which, then, certainly brings up a whole bunch of other interesting narrative points. How does a genius, an intuitive one at that, get portrayed successfully as a protagonist? How does someone who has just become a genius after going through a "meta-crisis" and starting at the audience's level or lower of intelligence get portrayed successfully? And, less interesting, did Russell T Davies even think of the above scenario or did he just let an unsatisfying deus ex machina occur because he likes doing that kind of thing? And, just to throw it out there, am I being a spoiled anti-fan or does my criticism come from my "writing sense."

Either which way, I'm not sad to see
Russell T Davies leaving Doctor Who as head writer. I give him credit for really being one of the main forces for bringing Doctor Who back to world. He has probably written some great episodes that I really liked. This finale, though, along with the resolution to the deus ex machina in Season 3 finale, "Last of the Time Lords", really just makes me think that I've had enough of Russell T Davies.

I look forward to and welcome Steven Moffatt as the head writer come season 5 in 2010. The writer of the episodes "Blink", "The Empty Child", "The Doctor Dances", "Silence in the Libary", "Forest of the Dead", of course, "The Curse of the Fatal Death", among others that he has written, I look forward to see what Mr. Moffatt has in store for us for at least a season.

Let's Explore "Show, Don't Tell"

In response to the Heroes finale and the following from Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People: I Guess There are Some Things a Hero Can't Save:

I wondered why Peter didn't fly himself, but then figured maybe he couldn't, but I do wish they had some sort of explanation. ("Nathan, I can't do two things at once! You're gonna have to fly me up!" Something like that...)

I voiced my frustration about hearing the now stereotypical advice "Show, don't tell" over at Dead Things ON Sticks: Thursday Morning Yes/No. When I finally get my ass into writing here again (like that's going to happen before the wedding -- just spent the whole evening clearing out e-mails from my "compulsory" mailbox and my mind feels like it's going to explode from everything that needs to get done, not just for the wedding but for life), I'd like to post a rant about "Show, don't tell."

Dramatic Irony on LOST

I've really gotten back into LOST again. This season, especially after the hiatus, the show really has taken the turn for the better. It also returns to keeping my attention like the first season without necessarily using the same literary techniques.

The use of dramatic irony does a lot to keep my attention. The LOST people have started doing an amazing job at revealing information about characters and some of The Others that the camp protagonists or other characters don't know about. They reveal the information in such a way that (A) they keep the integrity of the LOST "surprise" ending while also (B) revealing just enough information to sate the audience's appetite while also actually creating more mystery. GENIUS!!!!

In last night's episode, one character obviously did it to get the advantage over two other characters. Nonetheless, I've gotten to love the current strategy of revealing information not just because the mystery grows deeper, but also because we've gotten to the point where we don't know if we can trust the characters. We don't even know if we can trust the flashbacks of characters! How does the order of the flashbacks affect the truth of a situation? What information in a flashback attracts sympathy and what detracts the sympathy?

We, the audience, know that the drama and flashbacks manipulate us, but I, for one, don't mind the current manipulations. In fact, I like it. The narratives have become that much unreliable, but we know the truth of the relationships that depend on trust will eventually come out. The fun becomes who's thinking what when, and can I figure it out before the reveal. And this fun doesn't just happen in an individual episode, either, it now continues long-form, through the series. LOST has got me hooked again, and I don't think I'll have a problem going back to watch the show again, except for season 2. Blech!

To think, I'm speculating about what I think is happening! The Shock!