End Game

Think of this as a Requiem Mass

Le Chiffe had offered Bond a straight choice of tortures. Watching The Eleventh Hour or having a brick repeatedly swung into his balls. Bond instantly went for the less painful brick option.



Ok, deep breaths. I mean I thought it would be bad but that... That was just taking the piss.

Actually it was just acutely depressing, a bit like watching the autopsy of a childhood sweetheart.

It really is hard to know where to begin. How can you criticise a catastrophe?

Lets be honest, it was not Doctor Who but what a bunch of media execs and crowd pleasing hacks think people perceive Doctor Who as being. The best way to describe it is in cliché. Zany and madcap are the best I can think of. Obviously this is the problem. Doctor Who is no longer a drama programme, it is made as light entertainment. Hence why we have a series of non-linear, sense defying events linking together based around some excuse for a plot. Also, just to get on my favourite soap box, it had no story. There was a plot, when they could be bothered, but actually it managed to do or say very little. Quite frankly I thought The End of Time was patronising, this was just insulting.
Some time ago I wrote an article accusing J K Rowling of holding back the evolution of humanity. The Harry Potter series does nothing but perpetuate the lowest form of magic wand writing. Like C S Lewis before her Rowling creates a world where faith restores all and the only concern is for the fictional world the work inhabits. There is no conception about common human consciousness and the world we exist within. It is a cultural low simply because it is so detached from any significant meaning or value and only able to offer the formative and inquisitive mind nothing but shallow distraction. Rowling has actually helped do nothing more than lower cultural expectations to that of mere idle thrill.
This perhaps explains how Doctor Who has become locked in its present moribund sterility. The show is being made by people who seek to emulate the success of something which has no intrinsic worth. It is a programme made to gather the greatest number of viewers possible. Orwell was wrong; the proles are not distracted by pornography but the cheap, the tawdry and meaningless glass prism. Artistic expression has become the basest form of communication, that which distracts us from the process of existing and merely allows the clock to tick by the seconds of our lives without us caring.

I was watching one of those awful TV programmes about TV programmes. One of the people who thought themselves fit to offer an opinion was Phil Collinson. Watching some of his contributions it became clear as to why Doctor Who has become nothing more than a cheap entertainment programme. His main contribution focussed on Emmerdale. He explained, quite excitedly, how the plane crash story line was epic drama. No. No, no, no, no. It was not epic and it was not drama. It was just an awful and exploitative attempt to get ratings.

Soap opera generally works on three principles of expression.

1) The Sentimental (relationship issues)

2) Conflict (relentlessly nasty people doing relentlessly nasty things to each other)

3) The exaggerated grotesque (disaster, murder, rape, child abuse and any other personal assault or invasion)

None of these principles actually equate to good drama, if anything they are the antithesis of it. What Collinson failed to grasp was the difference between spectacle and drama (yes, I’m banging this drum again) When a soap opera deals with an issue like rape or child abuse it is not to explore the human psyche, it is an attempt to get ratings. This is the worst possible motivation and ultimately dangerous. Bad drama does more harm than good. After the success of The Accused Hollywood & American TV spawned many imitation rape dramas, not because they cared but because they were popular and had an audience. These films were more or less the same, for instance the attacks were by strangers or new acquaintances, and the victim always showered after the attack etc All these dramas did was build up a stereotypical scenario for sexual violence. The consequence was that many real life rape cases were jeopardised because they did not correspond to the scenario which was being represented by the movie making community.
Today most television writers have to work for soap opera in one form or another. New writers at the BBC are sent to write Doctors, graduate to Holby City and move to Eastenders. Here lies the issue. Training writers, directors or producers through the medium of soap opera can only warp and destroy any future expression of dramatic integrity.
What I am saying is to suggest a story line where a plane drops onto a village is dramatic is absurd; it is nothing more than the pornography of populism. Yet this obsession with success and tabloid approval is the philosophy which motivates modern Doctor Who. Everything has to be generic. This explains why this new era actually has very little new in it (Weeping Angels, Cybermen, Silurians, Daleks, River Song, Doctor meeting female child who obsesses over him into adulthood). There can be nothing which may upset the bland rut the show inhabits.
Even the theme has been given a makeover to make it as bland and passionless as possible. The original theme perfectly summed up the show, increased heart rate and escalating fear until our hero arrives to save the day. It was, like most of Grainer’s work, a musical definition of content (think The Prisoner as another). Even the Sylvester McCoy theme, until 6.20pm tonight the worst of all versions, had some fortitude. However now we have something so lacking in drive, distinction or originality it simply saps your energies. At this point I should also draw attention to the incidental music, as subtle as a foghorn. Through a loudspeaker. Directly next to your ear.
Also, the silence is coming. Just what we needed... more ropey faith and psychic divination prophecies. Begining of a new era my arse. It is just the old one only worse.

Oh crap I've just remembered Gary Russell knows where I live.

He really does.

I would suggest any man who refers to the mind behind The End of Time as a genius seriously needs to find a darkened room and take a few days to re-assess their priorities. For a start when you have two hours of television where every character can only talk about the plot and the enormity of what will be or is happening surely he twigged there was a problem.
Yet this is the man who ran Audio Visuals and Big Finish. The Audio Visuals tapes were a small group of fans making Doctor Who stories, some just plain terrible, some distinctly average and occasionally, as with Minuet in Hell by Alan W Lear, touching genius. Minuet in Hell by Audio Visuals should not be confused with the Big Finish re-make. The first version was original, daring, dramatic and understood the mythologies which under pin Doctor Who. The Gary Russell re-write was not and he is now charged with making the show for real.
Part of my issue with the modern show is that no one actually seems to understand its mythology. It is not a sci-fi show, yet they believe it is. The interesting conflict between old and new will be in the upcoming vampire story. Christopher H Bidmead always spoke about hardcore sci-fi but actually did the opposite. He builds mythologies (see Warriors Gate or Keeper of Traken as an example, he practically rewrote them from scratch) For Bidmead a vampire was not a Hammer Horror throw back but a form inimical to life, unleashing themselves on reality and feeding on whole worlds. I suspect the new series will simply go all Hammer Horror.
Understanding the difference between a sci-fi show designed to hold the attention and making drama is part of the Who mythology. The last Doctor Who story of the old series, Survival, saw a writer using the mythology of the show to explore ideas and concepts. The End of Time saw a writer so arrogant he could not actually be bothered to write anything beyond a masturbatory sci-fi fetish.

Talking of arrogant writers with masturbatory fetishes...


Moffat announces Doctor Who and The Gimp Men for Christmas Day.






I have many problems with the average Moffat script and quite sure many have been outlined before. However there is one area of concern which I have probably never discussed until now.

Moffat has a view of woman which mirrors that of a sexually frustrated adolescent male who has over dosed on porno.

In Press Gang you have a will they/won’t they relationship between a cocky teenager and his uptight (translate as frigid) woman boss. The lead female character was always made out to be somewhere between aloof and nasty simply because she spurned the rejections of her suitor.
In Coupling you just have a minefield of sexual neurosis being portrayed as the way young single women really act.
In Jekyll we have the ultimate and rather sickening assertion of original sin as truth with the “it’s the woman who makes him a monster” revelation.
In Who an unmarried teenage mother was at the centre of the problem; The Girl in the Fireplace is about a woman obsessed with a stranger (incidentally I know what the French court of that time really did in their fire places, and behind their curtains, so trust me, she would have stank like a sewer) In Blink you have a young woman get playfully amused by a naked man appearing in her friends house. So to Series 5. Karen Gillan and that uniform. We see Amy as a little girl who grows into a kiss-o-gram. In a sexy police uniform. Like the woman from TGITF she develops a sexual mania for the Doctor which builds in intensity over the years.
The Eleventh Hour piled up as much innuendo and flippant sexual humour as a mutated Carry on Film. Moffat can only portray women as objects of sex or in relation to the male perception of their sexuality. What we see is a writer obsessed with justifying his own neurosis rather than exploring them. Instead of writing a story he simply writes a prime time entertainment programme, with an audience of children, where women dress in sexy outfits and suggestive remarks are which have no relation to story, plot or characterisation. His whole writing career is defined by an attitude bordering on the sexually immature.


The Tenth Doctor.. no wait a sec, The Eleventh Doctor... or some 2 dimensional catchphrase spouting joke from The Fast Show... Who can tell the difference these days.








Whatever you do, don’t put him in a trap. Why you should not do this eludes me but I guess when we now have the lead character too busy telling us what kind of man he is every few seconds to actually do anything interesting none of us will ever find out.
The Tennant Doctor actually told us his character, repeatedly without ever actually doing anything to demonstrate it. The Smith Doctor appears to be on the same course. Instead of a character or performance we will get sound bytes and more of the same tired tricks of personality we had from Tennant only with different hair and wildly exagerrated to the Nth degree.

Examination question: Can you spot the difference between these shows?










Doctor Who is now undistinguishable from Merlin or Robin Hood. The BBC has a formula and their sticking to it. It’s called stagnation.
When no one in the BBC cared about Doctor Who it had freedom. Yes, it could be bad but it could also be a sublime demonstration of what Television is truly capable of. Now it is tarnished and the same as every other piece of fetid rubbish which erodes the cultural consciousness; the show only ever regresses in upon itself and never moves forward.

I actually do not care if I see Doctor Who again. What would be the point in watching anymore?

Screw you guys, I’m outta here.

Makako en Konvenig
March 2010