Waters of Mars Review
Fred
interfering in time and space, explores the question "how much
interference is too much interference?" In this case, it is about
altering a significant historic event in human history. As such, it
immediately compels one to compare this episode with other episodes
where the Doctor has dealt with the issue of interference.
One of if not the best Doctor Who story of all time dealt with this
issue: Genesis of the Daleks. One can compare Tom Baker holding two
wires in his hands and debating with Sarah Jane if he has the right to
commit genocide, to David Tennant arguing with Adelaide Brooke over
wether or not he should have saved her and two others on the Mars
base. And that really is the payoff scene for everything that occurs
in this story. And really, its an unfair comparison but its one the
story invites. Tom and Elizabeth Sladen both delivered a stunning
acting performance in that story and their version of this scene. It
highlights the limitations in Tennant's acting range to watch him try
to convince us he is struggling internally with a weighty decision.
He just seems too manic.
The aliens lack depth beyond "we want Earth's water" and are portrayed
as little more than thirsty monsters. But really they weren't the
focus of this episode.
The characterizations seem flat as usual in the RTD era. No-one
really seems to have an interesting outlook on life. We don't even
learn the motivation behind the characters of anyone living in Mars
base outside of Brooke, and even then it wasn't an interesting one and
they spent far too much time on it considering how dull her motivation
was. As such its difficult to care about any of them.
Anyone who knows Doctor Who lore will immediately watch the final
scenes on Earth and think about the Valeyard. The Valeyard was a 6th
Doctor enemy and supposedly was some kind of evil version of the
Doctor that manifested towards the end of his life. His bouts of
megalomania makes me wonder if we are beginning to see the early
stages of some Valeyard-like tendencies appear. I can just imagine
the weight of a time lord lifetime weighing down on him as friendships
form and die repeatedly.
The special effects are good. My favorite was the thought put into
the layout of the Mars base. The set designers could have just
slapped together a bunch of buildings haphazardly and gotten away with
it, but they really seemed to have a plan in place for the buildings.
A central hub with about 6 domes circling it, connected by tunnels.
One dome was a greenhouse, for example. The shuttle was set up on a
launch pad up and away from the rest of the structure.
All in all, Tenannt has never been my favorite Doctor, and I think its
a good thing for the show that both he and RTD are leaving. When
Doctor Who made a lot of great episodes back 20-40 years ago, hey it
was an accident and they didn't earn their place as classics in the
minds of many until years later. In the RTD era, I feel its quite the
reverse. People -want- Doctor Who to be a successful show, its more
mainstream now, but I think ten years from now, fans will look back at
the RTD era and Tennant's performance and realize it was
largely...forgettable.
Stephen Wilson
"Fred" <egop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2886c1a2-c689-4dcc...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> All in all, Tenannt has never been my favorite Doctor, and I think its
> a good thing for the show that both he and RTD are leaving. When
> Doctor Who made a lot of great episodes back 20-40 years ago, hey it
> was an accident and they didn't earn their place as classics in the
> minds of many until years later. In the RTD era, I feel its quite the
> reverse. People -want- Doctor Who to be a successful show, its more
> mainstream now, but I think ten years from now, fans will look back at
> the RTD era and Tennant's performance and realize it was
> largely...forgettable.
I disagree. Completely. I know people my age who never watched Dr Who prior
to 2005. However, they have become fans of it since. And that's almost
entirely down to the combination of RTD and Tennant.
Then there are people like my 12 year old niece. She's hooked on Dr Who -
because of Tennant. She says she won't watch it any more after he's left.
I reckon that 10 years from now, fans will be looking back at Tennant's era
with nostalgia, and calling it the golden age of Dr Who.
Alan Sailsbury
>In the RTD era, I feel its quite the
> reverse. People -want- Doctor Who to be a successful show, its more
> mainstream now, but I think ten years from now, fans will look back at
> the RTD era and Tennant's performance and realize it was
> largely...forgettable.
>
Some "fans" might, but those spoilt bastards are never happy about
anything. Most of the actual audience the show is aimed at, - the
general public and children, - will remember it with fondness.
Alan Sailsbury
Well said Stephen!
Fred, I think sometimes die-hard fans like you lose sight of the
audience that Doctor Who is aimed at, and, more importantly, what a
massive success it's been with that audience. YOU might not like RTD and
Tennant (which is your opinion and fair enough) but the vast majority do
like their work, - and the viewing figures prove it. Same goes for the
merchandise which continues to sell well, and for Doctor Who Monthly
which at least doubled its sales figures since the new series began in
2005. You can't argue against the numbers.
The Doctor
The Valeyard is the regeneration catalyst between 12th and last Doctors.
Even RTD and Moffatt have to acknowlegde this.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Merry Christmas 2009 and Happy New Year 2010
The Doctor
The Doctor
Soze
"Alan Sailsbury" <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote in message
news:uJWdnVm0qvCc25TW...@bt.com...
I agree with both Alan and Stephen here. Dr Who is probably the biggest it`s
been since the mid 70`s and it`s never been consistently amongst the top
most watched programmes of the week like it is at the moment. I think fans
often look back on the classic years with rose tinted specs sometimes as
well...sure the RTD years have had duff stories but so did virtually every
season from the show`s past. Has the new series given us anything as awful
as The Web Planet, The Underwater Menace, Colony in Space, Underworld, Four
to Doomsday, Timelash or time and the Rani? On a pure consistency basis I
think it`s pretty damn strong nowadays.
I take issue with the idea that RTD does characters badly. IMO that`s his
strong point. His weak point is in resolving stories...he excels in
character pieces. I also think Tennant is one of the strongest actors the
show has had. Tom will always be my favourite Doctor but by his own
admission he wasn`t really acting...just being himself. Technically Tennant
is a far better actor.
Ryan P.
I think its a bit short-sighted to say that Tennant will be the best
"new" Doctor ever, when we haven't seen what the next one can do. Also,
don't forget it was the CE/RTD combo which propelled DW back into pop
culture.
As for your niece, if she "won't" watch Dr Who after DT leaves, then
she's not really a Who fan, is she? She's a DT fan. I know people like
that, too. They watch because DT is cute.
Granted, maybe the next actor will be a poor choice, but we can't
possibly know that yet. People, I think, are attached to DT because
he's been around for several seasons, and are looking at the future and
past through rose colored glasses. Tom Baker is often sited as having
most of the best episodes... well, he MADE a lot more episodes than,
say, Peter Davison did, didn't he? The same holds true when comparing
DT to CE, I think.
pbo...@aol.com
> The Doctor, who has devoted his entire life and 10 personnas to
> interfering in time and space, explores the question "how much
> interference is too much interference?" In this case, it is about
> altering a significant historic event in human history. As such, it
> immediately compels one to compare this episode with other episodes
> where the Doctor has dealt with the issue of interference.
>
> One of if not the best Doctor Who story of all time dealt with this
> issue: Genesis of the Daleks. One can compare Tom Baker holding two
> wires in his hands and debating with Sarah Jane if he has the right to
> commit genocide, to David Tennant arguing with Adelaide Brooke over
> wether or not he should have saved her and two others on the Mars
> base.
One can, but not usefully. I don't recall the Baker/SJS scene - loved
Genesis as a kid, but classic Who generally has a habit of fading from
memory fairly quickly, even the stronger stories. However, the
Doctor's argument with Adelaide wasn't about whether or not he should
have saved her - it was about her realisation that the Doctor
shouldn't have the *power* to make that decision.
Unfortunately, by not recognising this distinction your criticism of
Tennant's performance is misdirected - he's manic because that's what
the situation demands of the character in this instance, as he becomes
something more closely resembling the panto Master of old. Baker was
always fun, but you should get a hint you've gone wrong somewhere if
you find yourself comparing his acting favourably with anyone else's
(except possibly Liz Sladen's)... Okay, I'll grant as I said that I
have no particular memory of that scene, but given that Baker's Doctor
Who success (and career) was split about 50/50 between being able to
make about three expressions and being able to carry off his costume,
I'd be very surprised if he broke from tradition and displayed any
kind of range as an actor.
Tom and Elizabeth Sladen both delivered a stunning
> acting performance in that story and their version of this scene. It
> highlights the limitations in Tennant's acting range to watch him try
> to convince us he is struggling internally with a weighty decision.
> He just seems too manic.
He isn't struggling; he's made the decision and is revelling in it.
The job of that scene is for Adelaide to force him to realise it was
the wrong one. This isn't Genesis, where the Doctor does the right
thing after deliberation, this is the story where, in the character's
own words, the Doctor goes too far.
> The aliens lack depth beyond "we want Earth's water" and are portrayed
> as little more than thirsty monsters. But really they weren't the
> focus of this episode.
Which is why that was fine - it's supposed to be a virus, it's a
stretch to give it a motive at all in any event.
> The characterizations seem flat as usual in the RTD era.
Really? They seem flat, but this is a curious generalisation since the
obvious comparison to be drawn is with the last "base under seige"
story, The Impossible Planet, with its considerably better-drawn
supporting cast.
However, these characters too weren't the focus of the story - that's
*why* only Adelaide (and to a much lesser extent Yuri) were given any
sort of exposition.
No-one
> really seems to have an interesting outlook on life.
I don't know, Yuri's brother's husband's idea sounded fun...
We don't even
> learn the motivation behind the characters of anyone living in Mars
> base outside of Brooke, and even then it wasn't an interesting one
They're characters, not actors - there's more to them than "What's my
motivation?" Yes, Brooke had a rather dull motive ('I want to get away
from it all'), but presented as a broader personality she worked well
and, most importantly given her role as the story companion, was a
good counterpart to Tennant.
and
> they spent far too much time on it considering how dull her motivation
> was.
Hmm? They spent about a sentence on it - they spent more time talking
about bikes.
As such its difficult to care about any of them.
Does that matter? That's not what they were for - they were there for
the Doctor to care about, not us. Which is normally the case in
fiction, in fact; I've never understood the obsession with wanting to
'care about' characters - they're story devices whose purpose is to
evoke reactions in the protagonist that drive the story.
> Anyone who knows Doctor Who lore will immediately watch the final
> scenes on Earth and think about the Valeyard.
No they won't. I've heard of the Valeyard and it didn't occur to me to
think of it. Anyone obsessed by old continuity, possibly - but then
again, Aggy didn't mention it either, so perhaps not.
> The special effects are good. My favorite was the thought put into
> the layout of the Mars base. The set designers could have just
> slapped together a bunch of buildings haphazardly and gotten away with
> it, but they really seemed to have a plan in place for the buildings.
> A central hub with about 6 domes circling it, connected by tunnels.
> One dome was a greenhouse, for example. The shuttle was set up on a
> launch pad up and away from the rest of the structure.
I thought the opening Mars shot was the best of the scenery shots. The
Confidential was incredibly boring, but it did lead me to appreciate
something I hadn't thought of, which was the effort needed to create
the water monster effects.
> All in all, Tenannt has never been my favorite Doctor, and I think its
> a good thing for the show that both he and RTD are leaving. When
> Doctor Who made a lot of great episodes back 20-40 years ago, hey it
> was an accident and they didn't earn their place as classics in the
> minds of many until years later. In the RTD era, I feel its quite the
> reverse.
People going out to make good TV instead of doing so occasionally by
happy accident? Wow, good thing they're buggering off, isn't it -
can't have that in Dr Who or it will spoil it for everyone who wants
to be proud of liking something everyone else laughs at.
People -want- Doctor Who to be a successful show, its more
> mainstream now, but I think ten years from now, fans will look back at
> the RTD era and Tennant's performance and realize it was
> largely...forgettable.
Maybe so - for most people that's how they look back on every other
era of Who, so why should Tennant's be any different? Probably the
major difference will be the higher proportion of 'classics' (around
1-3 a year) compared with classic Who (about 1-3 a decade).
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
> "Alan Sailsbury" <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote in message
>
> news:uJWdnVm0qvCc25TW...@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Stephen Wilson wrote:
I suspect that in terms of the public consciousness (rather than just
raw viewing figures), the mid-'70s don't come close.
and it`s never been consistently amongst the top
> most watched programmes of the week like it is at the moment. I think fans
> often look back on the classic years with rose tinted specs sometimes as
> well...sure the RTD years have had duff stories but so did virtually every
> season from the show`s past. Has the new series given us anything as awful
> as The Web Planet, The Underwater Menace, Colony in Space, Underworld, Four
> to Doomsday, Timelash or time and the Rani?
Fear Her. Only ones of the above I remember are Web Planet and
Underworld, both of which committed no crime worse than being boring
and with embarrassingly bad effects. Fear Her had an embarrassingly
bad story, embarrassingly bad performances and simply excruciating
dialogue.
> I take issue with the idea that RTD does characters badly. IMO that`s his
> strong point.
In general, but Fred does have a point about the characters in this
particular episode - but that was because they weren't a terribly
relevant part of the story, not due to any weakness in the writing.
His weak point is in resolving stories...he excels in
> character pieces. I also think Tennant is one of the strongest actors the
> show has had. Tom will always be my favourite Doctor but by his own
> admission he wasn`t really acting...just being himself. Technically Tennant
> is a far better actor.
Eccleston is probably the strongest actor the show's had in a leading
role, but certainly Tennant's better than the classic series leads -
Tom Baker being among the weaker of those *as an actor*. Fred may be
conflating the question of whether or not he liked the characters with
an assessment of the actors' ability to portray them well.
Phil
Ryan P.
> Unfortunately, by not recognising this distinction your criticism of
> Tennant's performance is misdirected - he's manic because that's what
> the situation demands of the character in this instance, as he becomes
> something more closely resembling the panto Master of old. Baker was
> always fun, but you should get a hint you've gone wrong somewhere if
> you find yourself comparing his acting favourably with anyone else's
> (except possibly Liz Sladen's)... Okay, I'll grant as I said that I
> have no particular memory of that scene, but given that Baker's Doctor
> Who success (and career) was split about 50/50 between being able to
> make about three expressions and being able to carry off his costume,
> I'd be very surprised if he broke from tradition and displayed any
> kind of range as an actor.
Eye of the beholder... Mind you, I don't think TB was a fantastic
actor, but I can count on one hand the times where DT deviates from from
his two main expressions (gawky smile, gawky excited). Even when he was
raging going through his little conversion to megalomania, his
expressions weren't particularly powerful. His "I've gone too far"
statement, on the other hand, was very intense, and backed up by the
rare use of an appropriate emotional expression.
>> The aliens lack depth beyond "we want Earth's water" and are portrayed
>> as little more than thirsty monsters. But really they weren't the
>> focus of this episode.
>
> Which is why that was fine - it's supposed to be a virus, it's a
> stretch to give it a motive at all in any event.
Seeing as they weren't actually a very important part of the story
being told, I can forgive their lack of development, however, looking at
it critically, you can't have it both ways. If they were nothing more
than a virus, they shouldn't have reacted to the Doctor's speaking
"Martian" at them and differently... they did though. But again, they
were just a device to cause havoc, so I can ignore that.
>> Anyone who knows Doctor Who lore will immediately watch the final
>> scenes on Earth and think about the Valeyard.
>
> No they won't. I've heard of the Valeyard and it didn't occur to me to
> think of it. Anyone obsessed by old continuity, possibly - but then
> again, Aggy didn't mention it either, so perhaps not.
I didn't think about the Valeyard, either. In fact, I briefly thought
about the old Master, and his "I'll do anything I want, damn the rules"
way of operating. The Valeyard was more actively "bad" and out to cause
trouble.
Of course, I may have the Master on the brain from the teaser to the
Christmas special I saw before I watched Waters.
The Doctor
pbo...@aol.com <pbo...@aol.com> wrote:
>On 22 Nov, 14:25, "Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Alan Sailsbury" <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote in message
>>
>> news:uJWdnVm0qvCc25TW...@bt.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Stephen Wilson wrote:
>> >> "Fred" <egopo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>.
>> >>> All in all, Tenannt has never been my favorite Doctor, and I think it=
>s
>> >>> a good thing for the show that both he and RTD are leaving. =A0When
>> >>> Doctor Who made a lot of great episodes back 20-40 years ago, hey it
>> >>> was an accident and they didn't earn their place as classics in the
>the
>> >>> reverse. =A0People -want- Doctor Who to be a successful show, its mor=
>e
>> >>> mainstream now, but I think ten years from now, fans will look back a=
>t
>> >>> the RTD era and Tennant's performance and realize it was
>> >>> largely...forgettable.
>>
>> >> I disagree. Completely. I know people my age who never watched Dr Who
>> >> prior to 2005. However, they have become fans of it since. And that's
>> >> almost entirely down to the combination of RTD and Tennant.
>>
>o -
>> >> because of Tennant. She says she won't watch it any more after he's le=
>ft.
>>
>> >> I reckon that 10 years from now, fans will be looking back at Tennant'=
>s
>> >> era with nostalgia, and calling it the golden age of Dr Who.
>>
>> > Well said Stephen!
>>
>ce
>> > that Doctor Who is aimed at, and, more importantly, what a massive succ=
>ess
>> > it's been with that audience. YOU might not like RTD and Tennant (which=
> is
>> > your opinion and fair enough) but the vast majority do like their work,=
> -
>> > and the viewing figures prove it. Same goes for the merchandise which
>ed
>> > its sales figures since the new series began in 2005. You can't argue
>> > against the numbers.
>>
>t`s
>> been since the mid 70`s
>
>I suspect that in terms of the public consciousness (rather than just
>raw viewing figures), the mid-'70s don't come close.
>
>and it`s never been consistently amongst the top
>s
>> often look back on the classic years with rose tinted specs sometimes as
>y
>> season from the show`s past. Has the new series given us anything as awfu=
>l
>> as The Web Planet, The Underwater Menace, Colony in Space, Underworld, Fo=
>ur
>> to Doomsday, Timelash or time and the Rani?
>
>Fear Her. Only ones of the above I remember are Web Planet and
>Underworld, both of which committed no crime worse than being boring
>and with embarrassingly bad effects. Fear Her had an embarrassingly
>bad story, embarrassingly bad performances and simply excruciating
>dialogue.
>
>> I take issue with the idea that RTD does characters badly. IMO that`s his
>> strong point.
>
>In general, but Fred does have a point about the characters in this
>particular episode - but that was because they weren't a terribly
>relevant part of the story, not due to any weakness in the writing.
>
> His weak point is in resolving stories...he excels in
>> character pieces. I also think Tennant is one of the strongest actors the
>> show has had. Tom will always be my favourite Doctor but by his own
>nt
>> is a far better actor.
>
>Eccleston is probably the strongest actor the show's had in a leading
>role, but certainly Tennant's better than the classic series leads -
>Tom Baker being among the weaker of those *as an actor*. Fred may be
>conflating the question of whether or not he liked the characters with
>an assessment of the actors' ability to portray them well.
>
>Phil
Fear Her is not bad. Love & Monsters OTOH ...
The Face of Po
Ryan P. got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:[...]
>>> Anyone who knows Doctor Who lore will immediately watch the final
>>> scenes on Earth and think about the Valeyard.
>>
>> No they won't. I've heard of the Valeyard and it didn't occur to me to
>> think of it. Anyone obsessed by old continuity, possibly - but then
>> again, Aggy didn't mention it either, so perhaps not.
>
> I didn't think about the Valeyard, either.
Me neither - if this is all part of the leadup for the Doctor becoming
the Valeyard by the end of his *twelfth* incarnation, then it's bloody
ambitious and depends on some Grand Plan being handed down across all
the producers and actors who pick up the baton. (See also the
Gatiss/Walliams "26 year plan".)
> In fact, I briefly thought
> about the old Master, and his "I'll do anything I want, damn the rules"
> way of operating.
The Doctor's exact words at this point were "The laws of time are mine
_and they will obey me_". That's so close to the Master's catchphrase
that I can't help thinking it's deliberate.
--
Happiness will prevail
Alan Sailsbury
> I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
> Ryan P. got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
>> On 11/22/2009 2:13 PM, pbo...@aol.com wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Anyone who knows Doctor Who lore will immediately watch the final
>>>> scenes on Earth and think about the Valeyard.
>>> No they won't. I've heard of the Valeyard and it didn't occur to me to
>>> think of it. Anyone obsessed by old continuity, possibly - but then
>>> again, Aggy didn't mention it either, so perhaps not.
>> I didn't think about the Valeyard, either.
>
> Me neither - if this is all part of the leadup for the Doctor becoming
> the Valeyard by the end of his *twelfth* incarnation, then it's bloody
> ambitious and depends on some Grand Plan being handed down across all
> the producers and actors who pick up the baton. (See also the
> Gatiss/Walliams "26 year plan".)
LOL! Considering Matt Smith is contracted for five years it certainly
would be a long term plan. :-) No, there's no Valeyard on the horizon,
and the 11th Doctor will be kid-friendly and heroic.
>
>> In fact, I briefly thought
>> about the old Master, and his "I'll do anything I want, damn the rules"
>> way of operating.
>
> The Doctor's exact words at this point were "The laws of time are mine
> _and they will obey me_". That's so close to the Master's catchphrase
> that I can't help thinking it's deliberate.
>
I thought his "catchphrase" was a camp "Oh my dear Doctor" and that had
thankfully been jettisoned years ago.
