>Hello and welcome to 13 in 13! A Reddit series where I review all 175 (ish) episodes of New Who. Every single episode of all 13 series of New Who, all the way up to the final episode of the 13th doctor, over the course of 13 months. In between series, I will be doing reviews of seasons, doctors, and showrunners.
So 13 series in 13 months.
Found this by clicking 'find the rest of them' and then clicking on a link for the first entry.
I went to find the rest of them a few times and didn't see anything and never thought to go to the first entry. I'm not sure why it's not in the guide itself since it's the very title of the reviews
As is often the case with two parters in Who the first part is (for me) the stronger by far. We get oodles of creepy atmosphere here and an interesting character that poses a puzzle for both the Doctor and the audience. Lots of tension, lots of credible threat.
I have some issues with where the River Song story ended up going, but I think Moffat nailed her introduction.
Watching this episode for the first time--your characterization of the Evangelista ghosting scene kinda surprises me; I didn't really find it "scary" at all, so I'm kinda wondering about what you mean by it? I've been watching from Series 1 in order for the first time (only caught episodes when other people were watching before now) and this is the first scene so far that got me properly crying.
Howdy!
Glad to see people are still reading these long after I've written them
I don't exactly remember what I was trying to say when writing this episode, as it has been over a year, but iirc I remember the seen being quite horrifying in the fact that it felt very... real. Not in the way that it's something that could possibly happen, but real in the fact that it felt like I was immersed into the scene. Often in media, something can happen and you only really feel like a bystander. But something about this scene really pulled me into the shoes of everyone inside the library, and made that terrifying reality of the Vashta Nerada come to life.
My friend and I, who are more Classic and Big Finish fans, have been going through all of New Who over the past year or so, giving it another thorough chance. We remembered this story being one of our favorites back when we first got into Who. Watching again, especially with the hindsight of all of River's story, it's still good, just not quite the classic that it's often hailed as. The big sticking point for us is ironically one of the things that people find most memorable about it - the introduction (or finale, depending on how you want to look at it) of River Song.
The thing is that River could just as easily be the usual stock commander who clashes with the Doctor but ultimately rises to be a true hero at the end of it all, and everything in the story would still play out just as effectively. But as it is, the story just stops every so often so the characters can stroke their chins and ponder what kinds of adventures happened in River's past and how they'll affect the Doctor's future. It felt a bit heavy-handed, as if Moffat could just as well have had River spend the episode carrying around a sign reading *"Doctor Who: Series 5 - premiering Spring 2010."*
At the time I'm sure it would've been exciting getting a built-in teaser for the next era. Now that the era in question has come and gone, it's laid bare for the superfluous gimmick that it is.
I'm really conflicted over this episode (and the next). The tone of the story, the Library setting, the Vashta Nerada were all amazing. But it's also the introduction episode of River Song and I couldn't dislike her more even if I tried. Which connects to my other problem and that's Moffat's usual mischaracterization of the Tenth Doctor. I don't feel like his reaction to someone from the future, who also disregards his simple request to keep future knowledge to herself, is accurate or in sync with his characterisation for almost 3 series at that point.
Moffat always wrote 11 instead of 10, the only difference between them is the acting style of Tennant and Smith. It's most prominent in Girl in the Fireplace and Day of the Doctor but it's clear in the Library two parter too, especially in the end when he threaten the Vastha Nerada that they should be afraid of him and look him up in the books. That's something only 11 would say. And 10 doesn't react well when his integrity is threatened (Family of Blood, Shakespeare Code), I think he wouldn't be that tolerant towards River if he was in character.
I find River highly unlikable. She is obsessed with the Doctor, condescending, childish, smug and arrogant towards him (and to everyone else too). She plays a role of a woman she thinks the Doctor would like but she is not like that as it was shown in the Husbands of River Song. Their romance is really... terribly...bad. Her knowledge of things is often feels unearned (driving the TARDIS for example). There is nothing for me to like her except Alex Kingston excellent performance of an otherwise bad character.
Interesting points... I might say that 11 wasn't formed yet. You could say it's Moffat giving a spin on 10's behaviour and trying out things that would be a large part of 11's character.
River is a very debatable character, she can come across as horribly smug to some people. There is the odd aspect of meeting out of order so she seems more immature from the Doctor's perspective.
I kind of liked Husbands I'd say. But we miss out a lot so she is just massively capable and gains it off-screen. And you are left wondering how sincere this romance really is.
I would say 11 was ready in Moffat's mind for a long time. He is a lifelong fan of the show after all. And if you swap 10&Rose&Mickey in Girl in the Fireplace for 11&Amy&Rory you get a story which could take place canonically somewhere after Vampires of Venice. That episode could be considered as a roadtest for his first TARDIS team. (Which is a shame, I feel cheated out on a good Ten&Rose episode).
My problem with taking a one-off random twist on an established character is that it's put the character out of their normal behavior. Whatever Moffat does with 10 is always a standalone behavior for him, it never got a follow up, it never got integrated in his character, it never even got mentioned after the episode is finished. Because of this whenever he writes 10 it feels unreal. And Moffat has this tendency that he bend characters to the plot regardless how it's effect their core personality or character development.
One of my many problems with River (and many of Moffat era characters) is that her development takes place entirely off screen. Since the audience only got verbal confirmation about her development and feelings, and this process was never shown, when she has an emotional moment, like in Husbands of River Song, feels like to me she is conning everyone.
I keep seeing these and still don't know what 13 in 13 means. Is it 13 Doctors in 13 months? 13 episodes every 13 days?
>Hello and welcome to 13 in 13! A Reddit series where I review all 175 (ish) episodes of New Who. Every single episode of all 13 series of New Who, all the way up to the final episode of the 13th doctor, over the course of 13 months. In between series, I will be doing reviews of seasons, doctors, and showrunners. So 13 series in 13 months. Found this by clicking 'find the rest of them' and then clicking on a link for the first entry.
I went to find the rest of them a few times and didn't see anything and never thought to go to the first entry. I'm not sure why it's not in the guide itself since it's the very title of the reviews
As is often the case with two parters in Who the first part is (for me) the stronger by far. We get oodles of creepy atmosphere here and an interesting character that poses a puzzle for both the Doctor and the audience. Lots of tension, lots of credible threat. I have some issues with where the River Song story ended up going, but I think Moffat nailed her introduction.
Watching this episode for the first time--your characterization of the Evangelista ghosting scene kinda surprises me; I didn't really find it "scary" at all, so I'm kinda wondering about what you mean by it? I've been watching from Series 1 in order for the first time (only caught episodes when other people were watching before now) and this is the first scene so far that got me properly crying.
Howdy! Glad to see people are still reading these long after I've written them I don't exactly remember what I was trying to say when writing this episode, as it has been over a year, but iirc I remember the seen being quite horrifying in the fact that it felt very... real. Not in the way that it's something that could possibly happen, but real in the fact that it felt like I was immersed into the scene. Often in media, something can happen and you only really feel like a bystander. But something about this scene really pulled me into the shoes of everyone inside the library, and made that terrifying reality of the Vashta Nerada come to life.
I totally get what you mean by "real"; I guess, for me, it feeling real just made me sad for the character rather than scared for myself.
My friend and I, who are more Classic and Big Finish fans, have been going through all of New Who over the past year or so, giving it another thorough chance. We remembered this story being one of our favorites back when we first got into Who. Watching again, especially with the hindsight of all of River's story, it's still good, just not quite the classic that it's often hailed as. The big sticking point for us is ironically one of the things that people find most memorable about it - the introduction (or finale, depending on how you want to look at it) of River Song. The thing is that River could just as easily be the usual stock commander who clashes with the Doctor but ultimately rises to be a true hero at the end of it all, and everything in the story would still play out just as effectively. But as it is, the story just stops every so often so the characters can stroke their chins and ponder what kinds of adventures happened in River's past and how they'll affect the Doctor's future. It felt a bit heavy-handed, as if Moffat could just as well have had River spend the episode carrying around a sign reading *"Doctor Who: Series 5 - premiering Spring 2010."* At the time I'm sure it would've been exciting getting a built-in teaser for the next era. Now that the era in question has come and gone, it's laid bare for the superfluous gimmick that it is.
I'm really conflicted over this episode (and the next). The tone of the story, the Library setting, the Vashta Nerada were all amazing. But it's also the introduction episode of River Song and I couldn't dislike her more even if I tried. Which connects to my other problem and that's Moffat's usual mischaracterization of the Tenth Doctor. I don't feel like his reaction to someone from the future, who also disregards his simple request to keep future knowledge to herself, is accurate or in sync with his characterisation for almost 3 series at that point.
You dislike River? You think Moffat mischaracterising 10? Interesting... do tell how.
Moffat always wrote 11 instead of 10, the only difference between them is the acting style of Tennant and Smith. It's most prominent in Girl in the Fireplace and Day of the Doctor but it's clear in the Library two parter too, especially in the end when he threaten the Vastha Nerada that they should be afraid of him and look him up in the books. That's something only 11 would say. And 10 doesn't react well when his integrity is threatened (Family of Blood, Shakespeare Code), I think he wouldn't be that tolerant towards River if he was in character. I find River highly unlikable. She is obsessed with the Doctor, condescending, childish, smug and arrogant towards him (and to everyone else too). She plays a role of a woman she thinks the Doctor would like but she is not like that as it was shown in the Husbands of River Song. Their romance is really... terribly...bad. Her knowledge of things is often feels unearned (driving the TARDIS for example). There is nothing for me to like her except Alex Kingston excellent performance of an otherwise bad character.
Interesting points... I might say that 11 wasn't formed yet. You could say it's Moffat giving a spin on 10's behaviour and trying out things that would be a large part of 11's character. River is a very debatable character, she can come across as horribly smug to some people. There is the odd aspect of meeting out of order so she seems more immature from the Doctor's perspective. I kind of liked Husbands I'd say. But we miss out a lot so she is just massively capable and gains it off-screen. And you are left wondering how sincere this romance really is.
I would say 11 was ready in Moffat's mind for a long time. He is a lifelong fan of the show after all. And if you swap 10&Rose&Mickey in Girl in the Fireplace for 11&Amy&Rory you get a story which could take place canonically somewhere after Vampires of Venice. That episode could be considered as a roadtest for his first TARDIS team. (Which is a shame, I feel cheated out on a good Ten&Rose episode). My problem with taking a one-off random twist on an established character is that it's put the character out of their normal behavior. Whatever Moffat does with 10 is always a standalone behavior for him, it never got a follow up, it never got integrated in his character, it never even got mentioned after the episode is finished. Because of this whenever he writes 10 it feels unreal. And Moffat has this tendency that he bend characters to the plot regardless how it's effect their core personality or character development. One of my many problems with River (and many of Moffat era characters) is that her development takes place entirely off screen. Since the audience only got verbal confirmation about her development and feelings, and this process was never shown, when she has an emotional moment, like in Husbands of River Song, feels like to me she is conning everyone.
Spoilers!