Why 'Doctor Who' Is Against Racism

Is 'Doctor Who' a TV-series reflecting a racist world-view? According to a soon-gona-be published book 'Doctor Who And Race' some scholars seem to think that's the case. To be fair, the book's official page asks people not to judge the book's content before reading it.

The book's editor claims that the recent fuss in the media is caused by one sentence (namely "perhaps the biggest elephant in the room is the problem, privately nursed by many fans, of loving a television show even when it is thunderingly racist") which appears to have "been taken thunderingly out of context". Nevertheless, in my humble unscholarly opinion, that sentence does not leave much room for interpretation. Does it? Sure, the author of that sentence tries to tune things down a bit (see official page for more detail). I can see how episodes like "An Unearthly Child" may appear to be 'racist' today. But then it's us who are taking the show out of context, namely, the context of time. Saying that something that has aired half a century ago on TV gives people a certain impression today cannot be taken as a basic element of an argument about its 'racism'. Because the problem here is pretty much the same as with that never-ending controversy about Mark Twain's 'Huckleberry Finn'. If it had been written today, then I'd be willing to see a problem. Even though its plot tells a completely different story.

So let the 'Doctor Who's stories speak. Are they racist? Well, I guess it depends on how you're interpreting racism. Because the Time Lords are certainly a bit proud of themselves... maybe not the Doctor, though. After all, he is pretty much aware of their mistakes, and he does not seem to be too fond of them, or their rules, given the fact that even before time-locking/destroying Galiffrey he was not too eager to spend much time there. Aww, that sounds harsh. On the other hand, his folks certainly accomplished some remarkable things... and the Doctor is aware of that too. Still, it's made pretty clear that he appreciates them rather for their achievements than their origin.

However, I have to say that there have been scenes, tiny moments, which may not even be part of its canon which seem to be out of place... E.g. in one of the 'Pond Life'  minisodes the Doctor apparently invents pasta. And given the fact that the TARDIS translates every language (plus, in one of the classic series we learn that the Doctor actually speaks Mandarin) I don't know why he did not just talk to them*... Well, then we have to take into account that those minisodes are written by Chris Chibnall, and even though he knows how to write crime, he yet has to prove that he can constantly deliver good sci-fi stories. Besides, Chibnall is certainly not too familiar with 'Doctor Who's canon. Actually that's the reason why I'm not sure if 'Pond Life' is even part of it...

At the same time it should be said that the overall idea of 'Doctor Who' is certainly against racism. The people (well, aliens) we see in 'Doctor Who' often come in all shapes and sizes, and it's humans who have usually rather inappropriate reactions to them. The Doctor on the other hand often finds himself embracing differences, and getting ridiculously exited by them. Usually, while everyone is appalled by the alien creature, its him who stands there declaring it to be beautiful ("Tooth and Claws", "The Unicorn and the Wasp"). In "Daleks in Manhattan" he even would have been willing to relocate his arch-enemies, the Daleks, simply because one of them changed its° mind on the Daleks' fundamental idea on differences, which is to 'EXTERMINATE' everything non-Dalek. In fact, if you're looking for racism in 'Doctor Who' then have a good look at the Daleks, to whom genes and origin is everything. And know think about the Doctor, and the fact that he's been fighting them for ages. 'Doctor Who' is about fighting racism and not supporting it. Because if you can't see that, then my friend, you simply weren't paying enough attention.

____

* I know, Mandarin is not the only language spoken in China, actually, they may have more languages than we have in whole Europe. But this argument does not change my actual point. 

° as far as I know, they do not have a concept of gender, do they?

The Mighty Moff on 'Doctor Who' and 'Sherlock'

2 weeks ago Steven Moffat was made to answer a few questions. And he did not.  At least not the *really* important ones. However, those he did answer are also pretty interesting, like, the fact that he sees John and Sherlock as "blokes who get on, instantly"  and that even though he thinks it's good that fans have their own shipping-theories, he has no intentions of changing their relationship (whoo-hoo!).

As for 'Doctor Who' and the anniversary, there is not much RedCarpetTV could get out of him. The Moff explains why he thinks it's good to have it made in 3D, and he makes a comment on fan's utterly wrong theories.

Oh I love you all Doctor Who fans, but honestly, now and then don't believe everything you hear or don't hear.

We had worse.

Oh, and there is that part on how he won't kidnap Peter Jackson to direct 'Doctor Who'. Good to know. I just love his sense of humour.

Changing 'Who'story

Moffat has a record on not keeping promises and on dubbing every single finale written by him 'a gamechanger', something which will have an impact on 'everything', including the past, the present and the future of 'Doctor Who'. That's the idea, that's his promise. But usually he does  not live up to it.

 And then came "The Name of the Doctor" and Moffat kept his promise: with that episode he did changed 'Who'story forever and by doing so, he made himself the most important showrunner of all time. You might think that's an exaggeration. But you have to admit that none of his forerunners have been brave enough to leave their permanent mark on the show's history, at least not like that. We got tiny bits like occasional references about the Time Lords, about Gallifrey, his family, about that famous 12 regeneration rule which has managed to stick around; but we do not know why he left his homeplanet, not to mention his real  name, or  the reason why he is obviously not using it.

Now, revealing certain things about the Doctor's past comes with certain problems. Not knowing has become a permanent rule, a fixed point, one of those few things everyone could rely on. Which means that everybody working on 'Who' before Moffat shaped the series accordingly. So, when Moffat has come along and introduced John Hurt as a former Doctor* the first thing coming to any sensible fan's mind is the question, 'so where do we fit that one in then?' 

On a basic level, there are two rather plausible options. First of all, there are, strictly speaking, no canonical records on why Hurt's Doctor could not have regenerated into William Hartnell's Doctor°. One big advantage of this theory is that we know that already back then the Doctor has not been using his *real* name. And by featuring the really first (maybe-not-yet) Doctor there is the chance of learning the *original* reason of why he decided to go by 'the Doctor'.

But let's not get too excited because at the same time, this is the very reason why it's not really likely that Moffat will tell us about the Doctor's actual pre-series past. It would break 'Who's 5o-years old rule. Which means that it's more likely that Hurt's Doctor is set after number 8. This is supported by the fact that we know that somewhen between McGann's Doctor regenerated into Eccelston's, the Doctor was fighting in the Great Time War#, during which he did things he is not proud of, like destroying (time-locking) Gallifrey and the Time Lords. A point in favour of this theory is that the 11th Doctor says about Hurt's Doctor that  

The name you choose is like a promise you make.
 He's the one who broke the promise.

From a linear perspective, although that's not necessarily the way 'Who' works, to be able to break a promise you need to have made one in the first place. So maybe, back in the dark old days, after doing something even more terrible than he did in the Great Time War, he decided to make time forget his real name, and started calling himself the Doctor, and by doing so he made the promise that whatever happened back then will never happen again, because he'll see it as his personal responsibility to take care of it. And then he becomes involved into the Great Time War and he fails to keep his old promise.

The second, even more important hint in favour of this theory is that the BBC asked Christopher Eccelston if he was willing to be involved into the 5oth anniversary. He obviously said no.

Solving things like this we would still get a rather awesome episode, even though it would only fill the gap of the Great Time War.

 ___

* Strictly speaking John Hurt's Doctor is  not a 'Doctor' as the Doctor does not grant him that 'title'. He simply does not deserve it. This means that luckily we do not need to change the numbering. But for the lack of a better alternative, I hope you don't mind if I'm using the word 'Doctor' for John Hut's 'Doctor' anyway.

°Well, looking at the plot as such, there is a problem after all. We know that Time Lords are supposed to have two hearts. However, this fact was not introduced for several seasons, because of which the 'first' Doctor appears to have just one heart ("The Edge of Destruction"). To resolve this plothole, some people came up with the idea that Time Lords get their second heart after their 1st regeneration, which makes Hartnell's Doctor the first. However then Hurt's Doctor cannot be placed before him; (then again, in "The Wheel in Space" featuring the 2nd Doctor, he still seems to be one-hearted.) Naturally, this rules does not actually feature in any episodes, for what it can be dismissed.

# Interestingly, the book in which Clara comes across the real name of the Doctor has the title "The History of the Time War" and not "The History of the Great Time War". Of course, this could be a simple mistake, but maybe there is more to it. After all,  it is possible that the Time Lords were involved in more than just one Time War.

The Name of the Doctor Cliffhanger

I strongly recommend not watching this YouTube clip if you have not seen the actual episode. I'm only posting this because it is the most important scene in 'Who' I can think of as it is the very first time that the almost 50 year old question 'Doctor who?' becomes really teased... So, enjoy and pay attention, as that minute is all Moffat offers us to survive the next 6 'Who'-less months.

Run You Clever Boy and Remember Me.

When you are a time traveller, 
 there is one place you must never go...

Ever since the Mighty Moff started his reign I have been waiting for a plausible, non-timey-wimey finale written by him, one which did not involve rewriting all of history, the end of civilisation, or that of the Doctor, or all three of these. And what do we get? "The Name of the Doctor" in which Moffat rewrites the Doctor's past. Twice. He kills him. Several times. And whole stellar constellations come to their end. Nevertheless, I have to say that this was the least timey-wimey, most plausible and, most importantly, best finale I've seen for ages. Because it made sense.

Sort of. Moffat made an effort to come up with brilliant explanations for several things. E.g. how the Paternoster Gang, post-library River and Clara could have a conference meeting regardless the obvious restrictions set by time and space. Even though, let's not really start to go into that matter, because I don't know why it was easier for them to get an actually dead River to attend that meeting, than a still living version of her...

Besides, there may be fans who'd love to have an explanation how post-library River can be the Doctor's  imaginary friend (is the TARDIS linked to the Library's data core, and if yes why is the Doctor (and Clara) the only one who's able to see her?) But I'm willing to accept that anyway, because him not wanting to say goodbye to her was heartbreaking. If there's one scene perfectly summarising their relationship, or the Doctor's life, then it's that one. Because he does hate goodbyes and endings. 

And I'm not sure if it was really necessary to use the *recent* TARDIS interior design for the Doctor's tomb. Or more importantly, how did the Paternoster Gang end up at Trenzalore? How did they time travel? Can the Great Intelligence and his Whispermen time travel as well, or have they been simply waiting for the Doctor to turn up at Trenzalore one day? Or what was the Great Intelligence's actual motivation behind destroying the Doctor's life? Why does it mean 'peace at last' for him? I hope Moffat will come back to these snippets. Maybe, and this is a very bold guess, he's the one responsible for the exploding TARDIS in "The Big Bang", something which is still waiting to be tackled.

At least, thank you for not revealing the Doctor's actual name. When they were trying to open the tomb I was worried for a split second... For a moment I thought the code word was 'please'. Now that would have been very didactic.

But luckily, "The Name of the Doctor" also gives us some answers. We find out how Clara can be the impossible girl: she sacrifices her life, scatters herself over time and space to be there and save the Doctor whenever it is needed. BTW, the flashbacks actually made me shiver. They were brilliantly done.  Clara's conversation with the Doctor who's just about to steal, sorry, borrow, the TARDIS was a masterpiece. I've no idea how they did that. But it was top notch.

However, with the Mighty Moff, each answer comes with several questions. Because, if Clara rewrites the Doctor's history, it's a bit strange that he hasn't noticed her sooner. Sure, Clara says he can't always see or hear her, but this statement does not *really* explain why it took him so long to actually notice her being there. Well, then again, I guess this is the best possible explanation Moffat can offer us, and we'll have to take what we get. And let's not start to think about how the Doctor could save Clara by entering his own timestream. It worked, somehow; that's another thing we'll have to put up with, I guess.

But there is yet another point. Clara enters the timeline of a future Doctor, one who will die at Trenzalore. Therefore, it's logical that she claims that she's seen all of him. The only thing which is not logical is why "all of him" should only include "11 faces" as she puts it. Time Lords can regenerate 12 times, which equals 13 different bodies, so, even with the "dark pre-Doctor" form the cliffhanger there should be one regeneration left. But there is not, according to Calra, which means it has to be the 11th Doctor who dies at Trenzalore... I know, time can be rewritten, and we have more exciting things to worry about at the moment, but all of a sudden, the last, final, ultimo episode of 'Who' seems to have come a lot closer.

All in all, this was certainly the best finale I've ever seen. If somebody has ever doubted the Big Moff's abilities in the past, "The Name of the Doctor" proves that he deserves his place. As much as I hate the fact that he's messing with the Doctor's past, I'm glad that it's him who's carving his ideas about it into stone, and not someone else.

Now, all I need is to borrow a TARDIS myself, because the Mighty Moff can't expect us to wait 6 months till the next episode. That would be torture...

She Said, He Said - A Prequel

Now, generally, I don't like prequels. They are meant to be appetisers, but they seldom are... They just end up making you less hungry. And sadly, this one is no exception.

And people should be careful when messing with the Doctor's past. Because there are questions whose answers we do not really want to know. And making it everybody else know, but not us, is not a fair solution to this problem either... 

But I'm looking forward to Clara's secret. Because she is perfect. The only companion who can never die, not properly (hold on, wasn't that Rory last season?). I for my part am dying to find out about the woman in the shop who gave her the Doctor's number in "The Bell's of Saint John". Was she River or someone else... I hope Moffat addresses that next week and that he has an awesome solution up his sleeves; one which is worth revealing the Doctor's secret.

An Impossible Game of Chess

You remember how I mentioned that Gaiman got our expectations up impossibly high? I was wrong, he did meet them, somehow. It wasn't quite full marks, but it wasn't an actual nightmare in silver as some people expected.

So, the Cybermen are scary again, the kids weren't annoying, well, not unintentionally, even though at times they did feel a bit pointless, Clara turned down a wedding proposal, and Matt Smith said 'Allons-y!', although I'll have to re-watch the whole thing to make sure which version of the Doctor actually said the tenth Doctor's catch-phrase. But I have to say that his... 'version' of the former Doctors (that should have been 9 and 10 I guess) weren't that authentic. To say it with 11th words: Let's never do that again. And all this was set between the ruins of an old amusement park. Which was rather spooky, even though IMHO they did not make proper use of it... Oh, and I LOVE the final shot: a cybermite floating through space.

One thing to nag about, except the lost opportunity of not really involving the CGI-ed amusement park, is that  again, an episode failed to add anything to the *big* who-is-Clara story. That is fine for 'causal' viewers, I guess. But isn't giving hints and teasers throughout the series the way Moffat has been writing 'Who' these days? Or are we just too stupid to see those supposedly red herrings this time? Or is that just me?

Anyway, Nightmare in Silver' is still rather good. I love the fact that the crucial plot device was the Doctor bluffing in a game of chess he was playing against himself, or rather the Cybermen's hive-mind. Oh, and chess was invented by the mighty Time Lords now? Didn't know that bit. But we'll make sure to add it to the big chunk of fun-facts of the Whoniverse*.

And it's episodes like this which make it even worse that Neil Gaiman does not feel like becoming the new showrunner of 'Who'. I just wanted to make that point clear.

Next week is the last time we get 'Who' on screen before the big 5oth anniversary.  So better make it a good one then.

___

* ... and to Wikipedia.  After all, you could quote Neil Gaiman as reasonable source.

Corruption of the Best Is Worst of All

To be honest, 'The Politician's Husband' is not one of those series which would have made it straight to my 'must-watch' list. It's about politics, power-games plus most of my friends compared it to 'The Borgias', all things which I'm not really into. Nevertheless, I sat down, and watched it, and... wasn't hooked. Sure, there were a few interesting and worth-watching bits in every single episode;  well, there were also things which made me cringe, and I guess that was their intention in the first place... And I'd have to lie if I said that at times it wasn't interesting. Actually, the best part of it was the very last scene, which wasn't only a very well put surprise but also added an additional twist to the intriguing story. And is it just me who felt it odd that in the very last seconds he didn't at least fake a tiny smile at his wife? Still, this was a 'nice' end - not without being a bit stereotypical after all, but maybe just as 'nice' as things could have become in the given circumstances.

So all in all, 'The Politician's Husband' is not a bad piece of telematic art, it's only something about which I wasn't that enthusiastic  to watch. It is not bad, but there are certainly better ways to spend 3 hours of your life.

Neil Gaiman Talks 'Who'

Maybe our expectations for Neil's "Nightmare in Silver" have become so high that it's physically not possible to live up to them any more. For one, it's not helping that last year's "The Doctor's Wife" originated from his mind, and this interview SFX did with him is not helping either. Because he really knows what freaks people out (Silent Cybermen? And it took almost 5o years to come up with that idea? Even though realising it seems to take even longer.) And I can't help but love his way of thinking and the explanation behind the 'new' Cybermen design.

The one bad thing about that interview is that Neil Gaiman seems to be pretty certain about not become the next showrunner of 'Who'.

Business As Usual...

"The Crimson Horror" is a picture book example what it takes to write a good episode of 'Who': a brilliant story, a mad, old woman, a creepy pre-historic monster and the Paternoster Gang. Come on, just give them their own spin-off. IMHO they have more potential than 'Torchwood' ever did. So what is the BBC waiting for... Oh, right, someone who'd take over that time- and budget-intensive project. What is Russel T Davies up to these days anyway?

But back to the episode. Basically, it's what you'd get if you combined Poe, sci-fi and Sherlock. It is a nice romp, there are a few excellent nods to the past, and the future (TomTom), plus some scenes looked as if they'd belonged originally to a proper horror film. And somehow Gatiss managed to get North England in 1893 just right. It felt as if they'd been there. This is actually the first non-Moffat episodes of season 7b which holds the balance between an interesting story, witty dialogues while not shunning to add some seriousness to it (Ada calling the Doctor her 'monster' was intentionally ambiguous, I guess). Plus, we got an additional moral lecture: you don't need to be perfect to sparkle. Oh, and did anyone else think it to be odd that the Doctor was not 'chosen' to live in Sweetville. Apparently he's not among the "best and the brightest" according to Mrs. Gillyflower...

So, next week, it's Neil Gaiman's turn, and looking at his "The Doctor's Wife" it has the potential of being something rather awesome. My dear, I really hope it's going to be good, because after "Journey" 7b needs something to improve statistics.

Because Moffat says so...

According to the RadioTimes Moffat was made  to answer some questions arising from the very, very obvious plot holes of "The Angels Take Manhattan". But it's hardly worth reading the article, because things do not really get explained. I mean, all he has to say about why the Statue of Liberty was able to move through New York without being noticed is 

"In those terrible days, in that conquered city, you saw and understoodonly what the Angels allowed, so Liberty could move and  hunt as it wished, in the blink of an eye, unseen by the lowly creatures upon which it preyed. Also, it tiptoed."

That's not an explanation, it's a statement. We know that being watched the Angels cannot move and no matter how fast they are, or  how much they do not want to be perceived, moving from Liberty Island to central New York cannot be done without being seen, by someone, at least once. And then they had to stop and become 'obvious' to the citizens of the city which never sleeps.  Therefore, it's not possible. 

And the back-up-story of why the Ponds cannot travel to the UK, or any other part of the world to be picked up by the Doctor there instead is not better...

Maybe the best bit is RadioTimes' comment on how Moffat is not really dealing with the paradoxes created by the Pond's farewell episode:

"If your head hurts now, wait until someone asks Moffat what happened to the whole 'an image of an Angel becoming an Angel' thing. That's a lot of dangerous New York postcards, right there..."

So, dear Moffat, simply admit you've done a few mistakes there. We'll  forgive and forget. And Sir, please, promise to put more thought into an episode's plot in the future.

Why Not Having Every Single Former Doctor* in the 5oth Aniversery...

... may not be such a terribly bad thing after all

According to doctorwhotv.co.uk DWM apparently announced that apart from David Tennant none of the other Doctors will be actively involved in 'Who's 5oth Anniversary. It is a pity of course, and I understand that people are disappointed°, but on 2nd thought there might be some advantages to it.

If you're doing a multi-Doctor episode the first thing you'll need is an excellent story. And coming up with a good story and a plausible explanation of why one version of the Doctor should bump into another version of himself can be tricky. Moffat solved this problem brilliantly in "Time Crash" (which just works on so many different levels that you simply don't know where to start counting). And the more Doctors you add to a plot the more difficult things start to be. I'm not saying it can't be done, it's only something really, really, hard to accomplish. To  be honest, Moffat is one of the few people whom I would have trusted to handle a more-than-just-two-Doctors story... But Christopher Eccelston famously decided to turn down the offer.

Having just one former Doctor may be a win as far as the plot is concerned. Interestingly, unlike other former multi-Doctor stories 11 does not need to bump into his former self. It could be 10.5 and Rose who are believed to live happily ever after in Pete's alternative universe... But then Moffat had to come up with a reason of why they should end up in 'our' world. On the plus side, he would *not* need to explain why all of a sudden the Doctor should have aged. Although, writing about it, I just realised that actually David Tennant does not look really older than in he did in "The End of Time"... Well, but Billie Piper does (*takes refuge behind sofa*). 

Of course Moffat could decide that 11 does actually meet 10 and Rose (for whatever reason). Maybe I'm wrong, though, as it would rise a few obvious questions, like most importantly why them meeting does not make the universe collapse, as in "Journey's End" the walls had to have been hermetically sealed off, forever, never being allowed to be opened again, especially for that very reason. Then again, after season 6 I'm sure there is not much Moffat wouldn't be able to find an explanation for.

Someone about whom I was hoping to come back is Donna Noble. I know she won't and she can't. But the Big Moff has a record of having written  more impossible plots in the past years and he managed to come up with a science-fictional backup story for them. Bringing Donna back should not be such a big deal... But it would rupture the story a bit, I guess. 

So, if not having any other former Doctors or companions in the Anniversary is what it takes to get a good story, then I'm happily accepting those conditions.

________

*I know it's a partly unrealistic idea. But it seems that having more than 2 of them is equally unrealistic as well.
°At the same time I'm glad that 10 (or 10.5?) is back. 

The Impossibe Book

Even though "Journey" is not exactly a masterpiece, somehow it is still one of the most remarkable episodes of 'Doctor Who' because we'll always remember it to be the first time that a companion learns the Doctor's actual name. Up to now people weren't sure if he had one in the first place. Others thought that his name is  'the Doctor', as he's been telling people the past 5o years.But Clara's reaction on learning the Doctor's name shows us that there is more to it...

Now, revealing the Doctor's name is something that many fans regard as one of the big, golden Don't-s of 'Doctor Who'. And therefore, the scene in which Clara is reading "The History of the Time War" in the TARDIS library and finds out about the Doctor's name is simply wrong in some Whovians'  opinion.  Thompson tries to compensate this by making Clara forgetting the events of "Journey" as they become rewritten.

But it's not only Clara coming across the Doctor's name which seems to be out of place there. Putting some thinking into it you'll notice that "The History of the Time War" is at least as impossible a book as Clara is an impossible girl.  Because, the first, well second, emerging question after seeing that scene is the story behind that book.

So, what do we know about it? Not much. Taking into consideration that the TARDIS does not translate Gallifreyan automatically ("A Good Man Goes to War") it seems that "The History of the Time War" can't be written in the Time Lords' language, otherwise Clara wouldn't have been able to read it.

Then there is the question regarding its author. Well, it has to be someone who's familiar with the Doctor's name. And this makes the Doctor the most obvious candidate. But then he's trying hard to keep his name a secret, so I don't think he'd write it down in a book, even though it's stored away in the library of the TARDIS, which means that no-one who shouldn't read it is going to get the chance to do so. But the point is still standing. He simply wouldn't take the risk of writing his name down.

Another person about whom we know to know his name is River Song. And although she is an Archaeologist (i.e. interested into history) and an academic expert in all things regarding the Doctor, she didn't write the book either. Knowing the Doctor's secret she might have realised why he's calling himself the Doctor instead, and she's not the kind of woman who'd betray him, at least not in this way. Plus, if the Doctor or River had written that book, it's likely that they would have used Gallifreyan or even Old Gallifreyan to do so.

Then there is the Master. We know he's familiar with the Doctor's name ("Sound of Drums") and that he has reasons to keep his own name a secret. Might their reasons be related? Who knows. What makes the Master a likely candidate is the fact that it's not difficult to imagine that he'd be willing to reveal the secrets of his arch enemy, which would also solve the secret of why the book is not written in Gallifreyan. Besides, unlike River, he has been knowing the Doctor for ages, which is an important point, because the reason why the Doctor is avoiding to mention his real name has to lie far back in time, before he and Susan decided to park the TARDIS at 76 Totter's Lane. Already there he insisted on being called the Doctor.

However, the book could have been also written by some who fought against the Time Lords in one of the Time Wars, or vice versa. I'm partly curious why the Doctor got mentioned in that book, i.e. in which context. These days he seems to have a rather pacifist attitude... Well, not really. That's rather the 1oth Doctor then.

At this point it should be mentioned that it's interesting that the book's title does not say "The History of the Great Time War". Is it relevant? Or a mistake? Or does the obvious THE indicate that the book is about THE one great Time War? And why does Clara seem to recognise that name? She's not an expert on the allies involved in the Time War or Gallifrey's  history. So how does she know that the name she read is that of the Doctor? And why does it seem to be familiar to her? After all, she says "So that's who..." I really hope Moffat won't let us down this time because I guess I'm not the only one wanting some answers.

A Mad Man's Mad Box

Now that's what I call an easy escape. Just re-write history, make the things which kept people's hearts racing never happen and allow a big friendly button to save the day. The worst thing is that I wouldn't have minded if this had been the plot of any other episode of this season, after all, this is pretty much the basic idea of Moffat's finales, only that this time it was done in a really un-crafty way. But this was "The Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS" (or "Journey"  for the sweet shortness of it). Which was maybe the  most anticipated episode of this season because it is one of those few times that we get to see the inside of the TARDIS. It's almost as if you'd have an episode featuring the Doctor's diary. And as in my humble opinion he isn't keeping one (or not ATM anyway), the TARDIS' interior comes pretty close to a diary's function. She's the one and only companion who manages to stick around. Which means if there is a place in the universe which can tell us something about the Doctor's past then it's inside that magical blue box. Therefore, it's only natural that the title of this week's episode got Whovians exited.

So just imagine the disappointment when we find out that the inside of the most iconic thing of this series seems to exist mostly of corridors. Or that's what Thompson decided to show us anyway. I get the idea. If you have many rooms you need many corridors connecting them. But the sheer number of corridors is simply ridiculous. Besides, when you get the chance to write a story set within the mighty walls of the TARDIS there are a number of items and rooms (from the classic series) which could have had a re-appearance on screen.

And this ties in with the second point which could have used improving. The rooms. Sure, we got to see a few glimpses of the Doctor's past (the cot, Amy's model of the TARDIS, and maybe other stuff which will be the only reason for fans to re-watch this episode a few times). But most of us were expecting more than seeing the swimming pool, the TARDIS architectural reconfiguration system and the famous library, which is giant but does not feature the aforementioned swimming pool... come on, how difficult would it have been to change that via CGI? You really could have given us that small pleasure. This way the most interesting part of the library is that the Encyclopedia Gallifreyica is kept in bottles. Whispering bottles. I love the idea. BTW, shouldn't the label translate rather to Encyclopaedia Galilifreyica? But given the fact that the TARDIS just crashlanded it's not difficult to accept that its translation mechanism appears to be somewhat faulty.

Even though I know that the TARDIS has changed its interior twice since the series' revival, I still imagined that some parts of it stayed the same and were still in there, like  the really impressing staircase-y bit  which we got a glimpse at "The Christmas Invasion". Somehow back then the TARDIS looked warm and more alive, something which got more and more CGI-ed away during the last seasons. Being familiar with Moffat's soft spot for fairy-tale-y motives things could have been much more impressive and less mechanic. After all, the TARDIS is not a machine, something which wasn't *really*pointed out this time.

And then there is the pointless and plotholes-ridden plot of "Journey", about which I do not really have the patience to complain. Still, just to mention a few things: after the TARDIS ends up in that salvage space-ship why is the Doctor outside the blue box, while Clara is still inside? And what are the odds of the TARDIS being attacked the very second the Doctor puts the shields down? The only thing which gets explained is those creepy, zombie-like creatures.And they make sense.

Of course, there were a few moments which managed to live up to expectations. The most touching TARDIS-Doctor moment was when he and Clara enter the heart of the TARDIS just to see her engine/heart being torn apart and frozen in time.  His "she's just always been there for me, taken care of me. And now it's my turn and I don't know what to do" was pretty touching. Additionally, "Journey" was the first episode in which the Doctor admits to have secrets and that it's important to him to keep them. Giving the nature of the series, this is only logical, but I can't remember having seen this issue addressed on screen this obviously. Plus, we learn that the Doctor does have an actual name. And it's not the Doctor. Otherwise, Clara  wouldn't have brought it up like this. Although, I think it's strange that the Doctor keeps a book about the history of the Time War ready to hand in the Library which contains his real name. And this brings me to the only good point of the wibbely-wobbely-timey-wimey storyline, namely, that rewriting these event made Clara forgetting about everything, including the Doctor's name.

So all in all, this could have been worse, but at the same time it could have been so much better... Let's hope that Gaiman's Cyberman-two-parter will manage to save this season from becoming the worst of 'New-Who'. Because that's where things are heading ATM.

Thousand Little Secrets Part 7 & 8

'Broadchuch' starts to be one of the best crime series out there (and we're getting another season, whoo-hoo). And they're right to do so, because episode 7 and 8 were just awesome. It had pacing, it kept us thinking and finally the police started to investigate, something they could have done several episodes earlier. Still, the last two parts were pretty exciting, so let's forget about the really long-ish middle part.  And I for my part would have never guessed Danny's killer. So Chibnall did his best to compensate the audience for episode 2-6.

Maybe the most outstanding thing about 'Broadchurch' is that it did not end with the police getting the killer, as the big who-done-it mystery was resolved right after 15 minutes into the last episode. Because of this the biggest part of the final story was about how the people were coping with the fact that Joe committed the murder. And this is something you do not get to see often in a crime series. Besides, it was not too dramatical, at least not if you take the usual standards for crime-dramas into account. Even the most dramatic scene, when Ellie learns that it was her husband, was done in a rather realistic way. It fit. The emotion, the way her boss breaks the news to her, her refusing to believe it, and her reaction when she sees that it's true after all. You could see how the information was sinking in and numbing her. Or Danny's family. Well, actually it was numbing the whole community, somehow. In the end everything came down to an accident. Ironically, only minutes before killing Danny, Joe prevented him from committing suicide... By this, Chibnall didn't need to come up with a plausible motive. There simply wasn't one, which is the best explanation for a murder case, because it's the most difficult to investigate. To be fair, without Joe's confession there would have been a good chance of them never solving the case.

So, ITV agreed to a 2nd season. And I'm happy to hear that Chibnall had plans for this all along. Let's hope that him saying  "I mentioned that if people liked it, there was another very different story we could tell afterwards" does not mean that we'll get only one additional season. Well, I guess it's difficult to explain why all of a sudden Broadchurch's crime rate should rocket sky. They are a pretty small community after all, and an additional murder case (or another sort of crime) must have a huge impact on their statistics. Of course there's still the unsolved Sandbrook case which needs investigation, so that might be an option without affecting the local crime rate... But maybe Chibnall is also up to something else.

Anyway. 'Broadchurch' got me hooked. No matter what Chibnall's plans are for the future, he can be sure I'll be watching.