Welcome, my
friend, to the show that never ends. Except for a lengthy absence from our
screens from 1989 to 2005, with a less than satisfactory TV movie in between.
And a break in 1985 when the BBC didn’t know if it wanted the series cluttering
up its bland light entertainment schedules any more. And next year when it’ll
only be half a season because the showrunner is just too darned busy.
Yes, folks, Doctor Who returns to our screens.
My own
enthusiasm for the show has been dampened, it’s true, as though it’s spent a
year with Bear Grylls in the Delta Magna swamps. But while the relationship may
be tired, I still love the dear old thing, damnit. (Luckily I’m restoring my
love of the show with revisits of old stories and, hopefully, a couple of
projects that have come my way. Hurrah!) And I will doubtless be watching every
week.
After all,
Peter Capaldi is the best Doctor since Tom Baker and that, right there, is something
to enthuse about even before the season’s kicked off.
What I won’t
be doing is posting episode reviews. Like Mr Moffat, I'm just too darned busy. And I’m just not sure it’s worth investing
more time and energy in dashing off a review than the writers put into plotting
their stories. When there’s more holes than cheese, there’s little left to
comment on. More crucially, I would probably end up repeating the same things.
Because the show repeats the same things like it’s trapped in its own creative
chronic hysteresis.
Last year I
cited my ‘Top 10’ of those repeat offences under the title Ten Things I Hate About Who. Hate, as I stated at the time, was too strong a word but these are
things that, for me, every time they recur, provoke despairing sighs to rival
those of Hong Kong Phooey’s very own Spot the Cat. They’re things that would
need correcting (and/or eliminating altogether from the format) to restore my
passion for the series.
It wouldn’t
take very much work at all for a decent script doctor to remedy all ten, but in
the absence of any apparent will or desire to change the formula, allow me to
introduce the THAW Scale.
Ten Hates
About Who.
That’s
right, in place of any full review I will be awarding each episode a score out
of 10, based on the THAW Scale. One point for each of the chronic-fatigue-syndrome-inducing
elements that rears its head like Punxsutawney Phil on Groundhog Day.
The higher
the score, the less the episode impressed. Simple.
As a
guide/reminder, the 10 elements on the THAW Scale are:
1. THE MUSIC – too busy, too loud
2. SOLDIERPHOBIA – Doctor hates soldiers
3. TARDIS – use of the TARDIS to solve
situations
4. SONIC – use of the magic wand to solve
situations
5. WIBBLY WOBBLY TIMEY-WIMEY
6. SOAP - Whollyoaks
7. GENIUS – pretending to be clever and
failing
8. MAGIC – moon-eggs, tree-fairies and the
like
9. NOT-MONSTERS – they’re not scary,
they’re just misunderstood
10. CLARA – girlfriend, just become a character, or leave
(again) already
Episodes
might not include all the above (gawd save us if they do), but might score more
if they’re really heavy on one element. E.g. Forest Of The Night, very very heavy on tree fairies, might easily win
itself 4 points just for its special blend of Disney Tinkerbell poo, growfast-and-vanish-overnight
fire-resistant trees and miraculously reappearing missing children. Factor in
Murray Gold’s din, not-monsters and Clara with all that homework to mark and
the Doctor might only have to whip out his screwdriver and wave it around a bit
in front of all those schoolkids to drive it up to a decidedly dodgy 10/10. And
almost all episodes from last season score highly (ie. badly) for Clara and
Soap, because the girl has an aversion to time-space travel and adventure,
feeling the need to break up the monotony of it all with holding down a
teaching job and crappy carbolic soap style romance with Danny Dull Pink.
A friend of
mine pointed out that, on this scale, most old Who would score pretty darned
well (i.e. very low), despite perhaps being a poor story. Well, true, but
that’s because these are largely modern phenomena – at least as far as their
excessive use goes – and there are other reasons a DW story can be poor, of
which you will find multiple examples in the show’s 50+ year history. Still, as
I watch through some of my old DW DVDs, if I post a review here I’ll include a
THAW Scale rating for fun.
NOTE: No
other viewers’ enjoyment was harmed during the making of this blog. Your
mileage may vary and vive la difference.
SAF 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment