S8. EP10 In The Forest of the Night

[Rassilon]

What did you think?

[ninjaconor]

Excellent start and some great moments throughout but the end seemed very rushed and anticlimactic. The whole thing about the defoliation chemicals was so pointless. If they're going to introduce a danger like that then they should to do more to resolve it than have a child make a phonecall. Again I blame the single-part episode format. They need to either do more two-parters or extend the single-parters by 10 minutes at the very least.

[Catsmate]

Very meh. Some good bits but mediocre overall.

[misterharry]

I feel I should like this one more than I do. Maybe it'll be a grower on repeat viewings, but at the moment it feels distinctly average. The resolution was underwhelming to say the least.

[Stormcrow]

As soon as they mentioned the solar flare I knew exactly how it was going to end. Yawn. And another "phone everyone in the world" bit. Yawn. And, sure, everyone will forget. Even though it was recorded everywhere. And didn't the center of London seem remarkably uninhabited? Why are zoo wolves hunting people?

To much disbelief had to be suspended for me to enjoy this one.

[da professor]

Danny appeared to be an almost anti-Doctor in one sense, in that he preferred to stay in one place and enjoy the magic of the everyday, rather than charge around the universe looking for the spectacular.

[thereviewer]

I for one actually really loved the idea that the trees were trying to save us. I know it seemed a bit ridiculous to take that literally, but as an activist for the environment among other things in my spare time, I actually really thought that was a great idea. Loved this episode, and now next week, the finale begins.

[Doctor X]

Enjoyed the episode, getting a bit annoyed at the season arc, but that shouldn't be news to anyone. I've said before how weary I am of every season HAVING to have a story arc. The series ran fine for years doing this only once in a while. Now EVERY season has to have a thread that I refer to as the "The MacGuffin is coming, you will all die" running through it. And the past two episodes have really shown how tacked on it's beginning to feel. We could have had two perfectly good stories that didn't NEED to be connected in any way at all, but they just HAD to tack Missy (And really, starting to not care who she is at this stage.) on at the end. It really feels like they shot the whole thing and then said afterwards "Damn, we forgot to put a link to the season finale in. Ok, let's add on a scene where Missy is watching everything that just happened on a monitor and says something cryptic."

[ninjaconor]

Oct 27, 2014 12:12:41 GMT Doctor X said:

Enjoyed the episode, getting a bit annoyed at the season arc, but that shouldn't be news to anyone. I've said before how weary I am of every season HAVING to have a story arc. The series ran fine for years doing this only once in a while. Now EVERY season has to have a thread that I refer to as the "The MacGuffin is coming, you will all die" running through it. And the past two episodes have really shown how tacked on it's beginning to feel. We could have had two perfectly good stories that didn't NEED to be connected in any way at all, but they just HAD to tack Missy (And really, starting to not care who she is at this stage.) on at the end. It really feels like they shot the whole thing and then said afterwards "Damn, we forgot to put a link to the season finale in. Ok, let's add on a scene where Missy is watching everything that just happened on a monitor and says something cryptic."

I've never understood people who don't like story arcs. I actually get really disappointed if there's no continuity in an episode. If the series was all just one-off unrelated adventures that affected nothing in the grand scheme of things I think I'd feel like I'd wasted a lot of time watching it.

[Stormcrow]

I want THIS episode that I'm currently watching to be good, in and of itself.

In any case, the Missy thing isn't an arc, it's just a bunch of thematically identical scenes shoved into unrelated stories. When what's going on gets revealed, we won't be amazed at how it all tied in during the series, because it doesn't. Those little bits will just be extras intruding on otherwise self-contained stories.

Moffat doesn't have the subtlety necessary to do surprise story arcs.

[Doctor X]

Oct 27, 2014 22:54:34 GMT Stormcrow said:

I want THIS episode that I'm currently watching to be good, in and of itself.

In any case, the Missy thing isn't an arc, it's just a bunch of thematically identical scenes shoved into unrelated stories. When what's going on gets revealed, we won't be amazed at how it all tied in during the series, because it doesn't. Those little bits will just be extras intruding on otherwise self-contained stories.

Moffat doesn't have the subtlety necessary to do surprise story arcs.

This was my point! Hamhandedly throwing in a scene at the end so every episode can have a link to the finale does not a story make. I'm willing to bet that when we do find out who she is, we're not all going to think "Oh, THAT'S why she was watching them on that monitor in the last couple episodes! I now see why it was important to show us that! That really paid off!"

I'm not saying NEVER have season arcs, just that when it's Every. Damn. Time., it's at best no longer special and at worst makes every story that comes before the finale pointless if all they existed for was to foreshadow the end. Why not just show us the finale and skip the stuff you didn't think was important enough to stand on it's own, then?

[ninjaconor]

Going to have to disagree. Half the fun of a new series of Doctor Who is speculating on the story arc. Coming up with theories, discussing them with friends, revising them when we get new information, it's all part of the experience. If the finale was just going to be a standalone episode there'd be none of this.

As for this particular story arc, I somewhat agree. I'd like to see Missy more involved in the individual episodes and having more of a visible impact on the storyline, but when they did this with the Silence a load of people threw a shitfit about everything being too complicated. Personally I hold series 5 and the first part of series 6 as some of the best episodes in the show's history (and I refuse to believe anyone's mind wasn't blown when Amy turned out to be a flesh duplicate).

Anyway, if an episode is good enough to stand on it's own, a little nod to a story arc won't hurt it, and if it's not then at least you'll get a sort of teaser for the finale. I doubt Blink would have been made any worse by a scene with Missy watching on a monitor, but it certainly would have made Love and Monsters seem less worthless.

[Stormcrow]

Oct 28, 2014 13:07:13 GMT ninjaconor said:

Going to have to disagree. Half the fun of a new series of Doctor Who is speculating on the story arc. Coming up with theories, discussing them with friends, revising them when we get new information, it's all part of the experience. If the finale was just going to be a standalone episode there'd be none of this.

And once you've seen the finale, the experience is over. You can never again wonder what it all means. Whereas with a self-contained story you can simply enjoy the story over and over. You're not watching it because you don't know the answers; you're watching it because it's good storytelling.

and I refuse to believe anyone's mind wasn't blown when Amy turned out to be a flesh duplicate

*raises hand*

I was kind of disappointed, actually. It turned the entire Flesh two-parter, which I already didn't like very much, into nothing more than a justification for a cheap trick to surprise the audience. Moffat likes to do things like that: rather than write actual mysteries, he films bald-faced lies and then springs the truth on you. It's a sign of someone who can't think of anything deep, and so just tries to trick you.

Anyway, if an episode is good enough to stand on it's own, a little nod to a story arc won't hurt it

Yes, it does! You're immersed in a good story, then suddenly there's a transition to a completely unrelated scene, something incomprehensible happens, then you get slammed back into the story where you left off with no explanation as to what just happened. That's just plain bad storytelling. You can NEVER watch that episode by itself without having that jarring experience.

I doubt Blink would have been made any worse by a scene with Missy watching on a monitor

"Blink" was all about atmosphere. Suddenly switching to a Missy scene would have spoiled the atmosphere.

[ninjaconor]

How do you feel about the spine art on the Doctor Who sourcebooks? If you have all of them and line them up on a shelf you get a cool picture of the logo. Does this ruin it for anybody who just buys one or two of the books? Of course not. It might look a little strange that there's part of a D on the spine and there may be some notes saying "see 10th Doctor Sourcebook" but the vast majority of the book is useful content that stands on its own. If people do want to buy the whole collection and build the big logo, more power to them.

Similarly, a three second cutaway at the end of an episode is going to have minimal effect on how much I enjoy it. I rewatch old episodes all the time, even the most story arc heavy ones like Day of the Moon and enjoy them just fine. If I have more time, I know I can stick on a whole series and get to enjoy each episode singularly and then have the bonus of watching the arc unfold.

You seem very negative about Steven Moffat regarding story arcs but I can think of very few episodes in the show's history that were completely stand-alone. Most of the classic series was 4-6 parters, so any individual episode would have been even more jarring to watch. Out of curiosity, what would you consider the best period in Doctor Who's history?

[Stormcrow]

Oct 28, 2014 15:12:58 GMT ninjaconor said:

How do you feel about the spine art on the Doctor Who sourcebooks? If you have all of them and line them up on a shelf you get a cool picture of the logo. Does this ruin it for anybody who just buys one or two of the books? Of course not. It might look a little strange that there's part of a D on the spine and there may be some notes saying "see 10th Doctor Sourcebook" but the vast majority of the book is useful content that stands on its own. If people do want to buy the whole collection and build the big logo, more power to them.

This is not storytelling.

Similarly, a three second cutaway at the end of an episode is going to have minimal effect on how much I enjoy it. I rewatch old episodes all the time, even the most story arc heavy ones like Day of the Moon and enjoy them just fine. If I have more time, I know I can stick on a whole series and get to enjoy each episode singularly and then have the bonus of watching the arc unfold.

But again, the Missy thing is not an arc. It's just an add-on bolted to various episodes. The only payoff is to go "Oh!" when the reveal happens.

You seem very negative about Steven Moffat regarding story arcs

I think Moffat is a good story writer but a poor producer. He doesn't understand the concept of subtlety and produces fan-fiction rather than good television. He's had some good moments, but he's certainly out of ideas now.

but I can think of very few episodes in the show's history that were completely stand-alone. Most of the classic series was 4-6 parters, so any individual episode would have been even more jarring to watch.

No. Before the revival, stories were written as cliffhangers, which are a different, but enjoyable, form of storytelling. They weren't interrupted by other things, they told a story and ended in a cliffhanger designed to be tense. Moffat is not producing cliffhangers. In fact, he's gone out of his way not to have any cliffhangers at all in series eight.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider the best period in Doctor Who's history?

I wouldn't care to make a judgment on that.

An example of a story arc done correctly: the Key to Time series. Each episode is self-contained and well written, but they culminate in a final confrontation at the end of the last story.

[ninjaconor]

Oct 28, 2014 16:03:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

This is not storytelling.

It's the same emotional journey for the reader though. Speculate what can be in the book. Read through it excitedly when it arrives. Encounter some things you like, some you don't. Discuss it with friends, come up with your own ideas about it, and then put it away and maybe come back later to have another look.

Oct 28, 2014 16:03:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

But again, the Missy thing is not an arc. It's just an add-on bolted to various episodes. The only payoff is to go "Oh!" when the reveal happens.

Well, until the arc is finished we can't say that for definite. From what we've seen of her already though, there's usually been a new piece of information from each encounter. Deep breath established that she exists in some place called heaven and can teleport dead robots there. Into the Dalek establishes that humans can go there too. In The Caretaker we learn that she has staff working for her and that something has just happened to piss her off. In Flatline she refers to Clara as "My Clara," indicating there's some sort of hidden connection there. I'm not sure of the significance of her latest appearance, but it provides a good lead-in to the finale. And then there's the whole "Promised Land" thing that's been going on as well that's sure to tie into it. To call it "bolted on" is terribly hyperbolic.

Oct 28, 2014 16:03:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

I think Moffat is a good story writer but a poor producer. He doesn't understand the concept of subtlety and produces fan-fiction rather than good television. He's had some good moments, but he's certainly out of ideas now.

I can almost agree with some of this. I think his episodes were stronger before he was showrunner, but he was only working on one a year back then. Nobody could up their workload 1300% without sacrificing some quality. Still I think the series as a whole has improved drastically in his tenure. While the endings of his story arcs may not always live up to expectations, the journey to get there is always really entertaining and at the very least I come away thinking "Oh, that was pretty clever!"

Oct 28, 2014 16:03:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

No. Before the revival, stories were written as cliffhangers, which are a different, but enjoyable, form of storytelling. They weren't interrupted by other things, they told a story and ended in a cliffhanger designed to be tense. Moffat is not producing cliffhangers. In fact, he's gone out of his way not to have any cliffhangers at all in series eight.

I also agree that I'd like to see the return of some cliffhangers. I think having a few multi-part episodes allows for deeper character development. That said, I don't see how the classic series shoehorning in a cliffhanger every 25 minutes is any less immersion breaking than a Missy cutaway every 2 or 3 episodes. For example, I was watching Terror of the Autons the other day. Now, Jon Pertwee is my favourite Doctor and Roger Delgado is my favourite Master, but there was one scene that just bugged me. The Doctor is in his lab and gets a phonecall. He answers and it's The Master. The Master plays some sound down the phone that makes the cable at The Doctor's end come to life and try to strangle him. Episode ends. Start of the next episode somebody unplugs the phone and The Doctor is fine. The Master's sonic device is never used again, and when he captures The Doctor later on he makes no attempt to kill him, so why did he try to strangle him over the phone? It was literally just so they'd have something exciting to end on.

Oct 28, 2014 16:03:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

An example of a story arc done correctly: the Key to Time series. Each episode is self-contained and well written, but they culminate in a final confrontation at the end of the last story.

I guess this all comes down to a matter of taste. I liked The Key to Time series, but more for the individual episodes than for the overarching plot. I found the idea that "the mysterious dude who sends the hero out to collect dangerous magic artefacts actually turns out to be the villain" really clichéd. It's pretty much the first thing you'd guess in a situation like that. The Silence though. I never would have guessed they were priests, but it makes sense when their powers are put into context. And I could make a few guesses as to who Missy is, but I can guarantee they'd be wrong. I like surprises and I think that's something Moffat does very well.

[Stormcrow]

Oct 28, 2014 18:38:17 GMT ninjaconor said:

Oct 28, 2014 16:03:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

This is not storytelling.

It's the same emotional journey for the reader though. Speculate what can be in the book. Read through it excitedly when it arrives. Encounter some things you like, some you don't. Discuss it with friends, come up with your own ideas about it, and then put it away and maybe come back later to have another look.

You clearly regard RPG supplements in a completely different way than I do. I don't have this reaction at all.

Oct 28, 2014 16:03:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

But again, the Missy thing is not an arc. It's just an add-on bolted to various episodes. The only payoff is to go "Oh!" when the reveal happens.

Well, until the arc is finished we can't say that for definite. From what we've seen of her already though, there's usually been a new piece of information from each encounter. Deep breath established that she exists in some place called heaven and can teleport dead robots there. Into the Dalek establishes that humans can go there too. In The Caretaker we learn that she has staff working for her and that something has just happened to piss her off. In Flatline she refers to Clara as "My Clara," indicating there's some sort of hidden connection there. I'm not sure of the significance of her latest appearance, but it provides a good lead-in to the finale. And then there's the whole "Promised Land" thing that's been going on as well that's sure to tie into it. To call it "bolted on" is terribly hyperbolic.

That's hardly an arc. At best it's a dribble. The stuff we've seen is completely separated from anything else happening in the story.

I think his episodes were stronger before he was showrunner, but he was only working on one a year back then. Nobody could up their workload 1300% without sacrificing some quality.

The he should get better writers!

Still I think the series as a whole has improved drastically in his tenure. While the endings of his story arcs may not always live up to expectations, the journey to get there is always really entertaining and at the very least I come away thinking "Oh, that was pretty clever!"

I have had the opposite reaction. I often find the build-up in his stories to be good, but then I'm let down by a contrived ending. At the very least I come away thinking, "He thinks he's pretty clever." His endings since he took over have all been showy and without substance. "I'm the Doctor, isn't that awesome?" Compare this to the ending of "The Doctor Dances": "Everybody lives, Rose! Just this once, everybody lives!" Now THAT was an ending! One wonders if Moffat wrote that himself.

I don't see how the classic series shoehorning in a cliffhanger every 25 minutes is any less immersion breaking than a Missy cutaway every 2 or 3 episodes.

A series of cliffhangers is an inherently different mode of storytelling than a series of self-contained stories. The cliffhangers do not interrupt the story; they are a storytelling device.

Cutting unrelated scenes into a self-contained story accomplishes only one thing: it sets the audience up to wonder what's going on at the end of the series. It's just teasers. There's no substance. And we're going to be getting all the information we've learned so far all over again anyway.

The Doctor later on he makes no attempt to kill him, so why did he try to strangle him over the phone? It was literally just so they'd have something exciting to end on.

I make no claim that enforced cliffhangers are a superior form of storytelling, or that they'll be done well; they're just a DIFFERENT form of storytelling than a self-contained story that gets interrupted by an unrelated scene that does not get resolved during the story.

I guess this all comes down to a matter of taste.

Yep.

I liked The Key to Time series, but more for the individual episodes than for the overarching plot.

Whether you like the series or not is irrelevant to my point. It is an example of an arc done unobtrusively. The individual stories are not jarred by the arc.

I found the idea that "the mysterious dude who sends the hero out to collect dangerous magic artefacts actually turns out to be the villain" really clichéd. It's pretty much the first thing you'd guess in a situation like that.

Actually the White Guardian really did recruit the Doctor, while the Black Guardian tried to trick him at the end. The Doctor boasts that he can tell the White Guardian from the Black, so one presumes he could do so at the beginning. Besides, if the Black Guardian were masquerading as the White Guardian, why would he warn the Doctor about himself?

As for being guessable: yes, it was, easily. But that's okay, because they didn't ruin self-contained stories with a lame arc.

The Silence though. I never would have guessed they were priests, but it makes sense when their powers are put into context.

I feel quite certain that Moffat made that up later. He just invented the Silents because they were creepy, and came up with the "priest" angle later.

And I could make a few guesses as to who Missy is, but I can guarantee they'd be wrong. I like surprises and I think that's something Moffat does very well.

It's the surprise of someone telling you he's going to give you A and then giving you B.

[ninjaconor]

I think we've kind of reached a bit of an impasse here. I was confused that some people can be so turned off by Moffat's storylines and I guess I was interested in trying to see it from the other side of the fence, but in the end it does just seem to come down to different strokes for different folks. I don't think I'm going to find any magic words to convince you how compelling and entertaining the recent series' have been from my perspective and I don't think you're going to come up with anything to change my mind on it. It's been an interesting discussion though, so thanks for that! And who knows, if the show goes on another 50 years they may stumble on a showrunner who suits you and then I can complain about how it's all gone downhill

[Hedgewick]

As for the thread thus far...

"That was bantering! I am totally against bantering."

[Escher]

I think it was the weakest of the entire new series so far. Surprising, since the writer was Frank Cottrell Boyce, who has a good pedigree as a writer, but obviously Doctor Who is not his forte. There wasn't enough menace or Whovian bits of interesting stuff to keep me engaged.

Actually, it felt like an episode of The Sarah Jane Adventures. Not a bad thing, but this would have worked on Kid's TV and not prime time Saturday night near-watershed viewing time. On second thoughts, it would have suited Matt Smith's style better.

Not a disaster, but it was a bit of nice sci-fi fantasy fluff that could have been much better if it were a bit darker.

[hobbitfan]

Some interesting concepts but a mess of an episode.

[Eryx]

Oct 28, 2014 16:03:04 GMT Stormcrow said:

I think Moffat is a good story writer but a poor producer. He doesn't understand the concept of subtlety and produces fan-fiction rather than good television. He's had some good moments, but he's certainly out of ideas now.

This is spot on for me. I'm not going to bash Moffat because I don't think he's as bad as people like to make out but the show under his tenure has become too science-fairy tale for me tastes. Fan fiction as you put it.