Fear Her

[altariel]

Extremely good episode, I thought, which handled domestic terror much better than 'The Idiot's Lantern'. I loved the TARDIS landing smack up against a wall, and the performances of the little girl and her mother were excellent. As scary as Marianne Dreams only without the unremitting empty bleakness which I think vaguely traumatized me as a child.

The only thing which didn't work for me (and really didn't) was Huw Edwards gasping, "The Olympic dream is dead! Hope and love are dead!" or whatever it was, but perhaps this is something to do with the 'family viewing' thing and thousands upon thousands of Blue Peter brainwashed nine-year-olds across the nation were also gasping in fear and horror and distress and I shouldn't be such a crusty old cynic.

Comments

[aervir.livejournal.com]

It felt to me, too, like a remake of The Idiot's Lantern, only better.

I didn't care too much for the depiction of the bogeyman-Dad out of Chloe's wardrobe, though. But if I found this slightly childish, this might only show that it actually worked because it probably should give the impression of a kid's nightmare.

Huw Edwards gasping, "The Olympic dream is dead! Hope and love are dead!"

Another crusty old cynic here. I actually started giggling. But perhaps this is merely due to the fact that I never associated dreams and hope and love with sports, of all things.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I really liked the wardrobe, I thought it was scary! A friend pointed out it could be seen as a riff on The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

[aervir.livejournal.com]

Oh, I really hadn't thought of that connection! Did the BBC intend to traumatize all little Narnia-fans in the audience...?

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Heh, if they weren't I want my licence fee back.

[fictualities.livejournal.com]

I also thought it was a promising episode with an incredibly compelling concept, though that bit with the torch at the end did cause my brain to leave the building and wait for it all to be over.

Hmmm, interesting that the ep should be so very much about the ways in which love can be a trap -- the Chloe and her mom clearly refugees from a horribly violent dometic situation, and the weirdly vampiristic hunger of the being who needed so much love to survive. The show has been doing a great deal to explore the Doctor's emotional bonds or lack thereof -- it's interesting we should get the casual confession that he's been a dad in the context of a show in which love is so . . . overwhelmingly dangerous?

Hmmm. Very interesting show.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I think it wasn't so much the Doctor lighting the Olympic flame I minded so much (Ten is such a tart that I can see him doing it) as the commentary (which literally made my toes curl up).

the weirdly vampiristic hunger of the being who needed so much love to survive

Like a lonely time-travelling alien who has a series of companions who are bereft when he finally abandons him.

a show in which love is so . . . overwhelmingly dangerous?

It comes with Monsters. Thinking on the fly, connecting all sorts of different things that interest me, I suppose this the opposite of what Le Guin depicts in Tehanu, where love is the ongoing product of everyday life and everyday actions.

[aervir.livejournal.com]

Like a lonely time-travelling alien who has a series of companions who are bereft when he finally abandons him.

In this context, it's probably interesting that the Doctor says to the Isolus something along the lines of "You can't keep stealing friends just because you're lonely."

I was all like, "hey, that's a bit rich coming from you!"

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I was all like, "hey, that's a bit rich coming from you!"

:-D

[lizblackdog.livejournal.com]

that was rather what I was thinking, too.

I've had others on my f-list bitching that this one (and Love and Monsters) were too sentimental and not science-fictiony enough. Personally, I loved both of them. Glad I'm not the only one.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I thought 'Love and Monsters' was absolutely brilliant.

[aervir.livejournal.com]

Some of the reviews at Behind the Sofa (http://tachyontv.typepad.com/waiting_for_christopher/) and doctorwho were downright nasty. And I just don't get it. From what I've seen of Doctor Who so far (which is, admittedly, not very much) it doesn't seem to be terribly strong on 'proper' sci-fi a great deal of the time...

Stars and magic

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I don't get the Who=SF thing either.

Re: Stars and magic

[aervir.livejournal.com]

Well, they do use SF-ish (for lack of a better word) to tell their stories, but "stars and magic" probably describes it better.

And it actually works best for me when they drop the technobabble and focus on humour or characterization or symbolism disguised as pseudo-sci-fi instead.

The time-windows on the spaceship in The Girl of the Fireplace, for example, might seem more like real SF, but I still thought they were only a vehicle for a fairy-tale about the doomed romance of a couple with two different ways of perceiving/living time. (I'm such a sap.)

Re: Stars and magic

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I love a bit of technobabble when it's well done, because it's play with words. "Spatio-temporal hyperlink" from 'The Girl in the Fireplace' being a case in point!

Re: Stars and magic

[aervir.livejournal.com]

Don't you mean 'magic door'...?

Re: Stars and magic

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Zigackly!

[kerravonsen]

Some of the reviews at Behind the Sofa and doctorwho were downright nasty.

What I'm puzzled about is my own reaction. I really hated "The Christmas Invasion" and "New Earth" and was irritated by "Tooth and Claw" (and definitely my irritation with New Earth was to do with the huge plotholes) but I did like "Love and Monsters" and "Fear Her" which could arguably have just as many plotholes. On the other hand, those first three episodes had Doctor!Sue and giggly!Rose which were my chief sources of irritation with them, while these last two didn't, so that could be why I like them better.

Which probably means that I personally am more interested in characterisation, though equally aware of plotholes, I'm more ready to forgive plotholes when I like the character dynamics?

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I know I'm ready to forgive anything if I like the character dynamics *cough*blakes7*cough ;-)

[kerravonsen]

I was all like, "hey, that's a bit rich coming from you!"

Oi! He doesn't steal them. They volunteer.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

He steals Ian and Barbara! ;-)

[kerravonsen]

But you could hardly argue that the 1st Doctor was lonely and stealing them to be friends -- he had Susan, after all.

[aervir.livejournal.com]

Details, details. ;)

[jhall1.livejournal.com]

I liked the episode a lot. However I had a big problem with the idea that, when 80,000 people had disappeared from the Olympic Stadium, the journey of the Olympic Flame would apparently continue through cheering crowds as though it hadn't happened.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Yes, there was a fair bit of fudging around that part of the narrative.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I think it could be done, assuming neither the runner nor the bulk of the crowds were equipped with radio earpieces. It's just that the commentary ought to have switched to "He's still running! They're still cheering! They have no idea of the disaster that has happened here!" And you'd see stewards or something trying to fight their way to the front of the crowd to explain. But as communicator has said, there was a rather childlike naivete about how the real world would react throughout the story - she cited the absence of police and press investigating the disappearance of several children from a well-heeled estate.

[edge-of-ruin.livejournal.com]

The only thing which didn't work for me (and really didn't) was Huw Edwards gasping, "The Olympic dream is dead! Hope and love are dead!"

Hmm – I've been trying to work out why I thought this was O.K. and at the moment I'm not really succeeding – probably because I loved the episode (though I missed the very beginning) but consciously found myself letting it work on an emotional level rather than a logical one, I think. In a 'childlike' way maybe? And I'm wondering whether that was the point that was trying to be made with the outrageously sentimental over-the-topness – the power of strong emotion and imagination over the rational? The Doctor added the torch to the picture – turning it into something more - a beacon of hope (Oh yes! How could I resist!) a thing of power – through the force of his imagination – I suppose. So the gaping logical potholes - sorry plot holes *grin* - aren't glossed over, exactly, but, in the world of the story, are supposed not to matter?

Eek! Please excuse the incoherent rambling!

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering whether that was the point that was trying to be made with the outrageously sentimental over-the-topness – the power of strong emotion and imagination over the rational?

Ooh! Ah! Now that's interesting! So the news is sort of hyper-realized, like it's also part of a child's dreams or imagination?

[edge-of-ruin.livejournal.com]

Hmm ... yes, perhaps like children would act it out in a game?

[scavgraphics.livejournal.com]

My real problem is that Doctor Who...or any show for that matter, shouldn't be swiping from "Ghostbusters 2" for it's plot resolution (see olympic torch vs Statue of Liberty (with torch)) --Otherwise, I liked it.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I suppose if you're going to steal you should steal from the... er... best...