Rate and Discuss 6.5: The Rebel Flesh

[Logo Polish]

I wonder if Raquel Cassidy's role had first been offered to Julie Graham. Sarah Smart was very good though.

Would have been something of an At Home With The Braithwaites reunion if they had given the role to her, as she and Sarah Smart's characters were lovers in that programme.

[FlyingBeastie]

Because I really like that bit, and it's surprising it took 40+ years for somebody to do that actually fairly obvious 'gag'.

It is a funny gag, but ultimately it's filler. And Graham seems to suffer from that given what we saw last night has about as much padding as "Frontier in Space". Not only is everything moving very slowly, but everyone's running about and sneaking around for no real reason other than to make it seem like something's going on.

Like I mentioned, I'm reserving judgment for part two given that what's being set up with having a ganger Doctor has great potential and perhaps this two-parter was written around that storyline (hence it was slow) Because the could've easily introduced everyone much like they did in "42" or "Impossible Planet" where they were already under siege- we didn't need to see Jennifer's ganger take more screen time out of the episode by seeing her get molded in that vat thing (we are already impressed with the solar tsunami effects!!!!)

Only problem with part two is, this is the same bloke who wrote "Fear Her" and now "Rebel Flesh"- I don't trust him.

We were so spoiled last week.

1/10

[Si Hunt]

I enjoyed it more than I thought I would, but I thought it was going to be rubbish. The monastry made a more interesting setting than a spaceship, but perhaps they should have changed the rest of the script to suit. Was this the future? Why did they send out for a "shuttle" if they were on an island.

It dragged a bit in the middle but the make-up was good and it held the attention. The moments of character were quite nice, and there was less macho space nonsense than "42". But STILL we have another story where the Doctor turns up to a scientifical establishment manned by five people who we don't care about. I really think names help. Who could remember what anyone was called in "42"? The benchmark is "Robots of Death" where you know what everyone is called, and thus care about them. I remembered about two of the names here, but it wasn't enough. I'd care about the blonde man more if I knew his name. Just change the script a bit more to have people calling him it a bit more often.

Is the Doctor being in the Rebel Flesh going to have anything to do with the regenerating child?

This felt like a reasonable two-parter, yet there wern't that many good ideas on display. The Gangers are just clones really arn't they? And the story is just those old staples the Doppelganger story crossed with the Base Under Seige story. If anyone but Matthew Graham had pitched this, would they have been keen?

I don't know. I wonder if the Moffatt Method of changing tack mid-way through a two-parter is the way to go. In six years we're used to stories in 45 minutes; now we're suddenly presented with one with the same amount of plot stretched to twice the length.

Still, I enjoyed it. A generous 7/10 from me.

Si.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

It is a funny gag, but ultimately it's filler. And Graham seems to suffer from that given what we saw last night has about as much padding as "Frontier in Space". Not only is everything moving very slowly, but everyone's running about and sneaking around for no real reason other than to make it seem like something's going on.

Like I mentioned, I'm reserving judgment for part two given that what's being set up with having a ganger Doctor has great potential and perhaps this two-parter was written around that storyline (hence it was slow) Because the could've easily introduced everyone much like they did in "42" or "Impossible Planet" where they were already under siege- we didn't need to see Jennifer's ganger take more screen time out of the episode by seeing her get molded in that vat thing (we are already impressed with the solar tsunami effects!!!!)

Only problem with part two is, this is the same bloke who wrote "Fear Her" and now "Rebel Flesh"- I don't trust him.

We were so spoiled last week.

1/10

I'd have to politely disagree that anything that only takes up 15 seconds is "filler", it was clearly put there because it was wanted, not to just take up time. Also I'd argue that a scene showing a liquid flesh person actually being made, in a story about liquid flesh people becoming sentient and taking over, actually has a valid reason to be included.

... oh and I'd also disagree that "we" were spoiled last week.

[Si Hunt]

We can but hope Julie Graham never does a Who. She's great, but the woman's cursed. Everything she's ever in finishes shortly afterwards.

Si.

[brandynigma]

Just a thought re: recurring pregnancy scan- maybe there's a Silent in the TARDIS, and the Doctor keeps forgetting he's done the scan?

[Paul Monk]

As anyone who has breathed in anywhere near a beaker of concentrated hydrochloric acid will tell you, everyone should have been coughing and rasping with incredibly sore throats.

OH yes! Its frazzles your nasal passages too. I'm amazed at how disliked this episode was. It wasn't that bad. I'd agree the directing let it down though

[Andrew Curnow]

Actually, I feel I ought to say (despite posts that might well suggest otherwise) that I didn't actually dislike it. It's more that I couldn't find anything in it to really latch onto as something I really liked. It's more of a "meh" reaction from me, than a "yeuch".

(I really liked Fear Her though!)

[Si Hunt]

I think it was just a bit unimaginative. There are still loads of really fresh settings for a Doctor Who episode they haven't done, and even more they haven't done for a while, like a jungle planet or one set in some woods, or a Medieval castle one like "The Time Warrior" or one set in a 20th Century seaside setting turned sinister, or one set at a Funfair.

I'm afraid another story set in a remote scientific outpost with a clutch of base personnel fighting some humanoid monsters was just a bit dull, given "42", "The Impossible Planet", "The Waters From Mars", "Hungry Earth" etc. etc.

Si.

[Awesome Wells]

I'd agree the directing let it down though

Thanks, Paul - I was beginning to think it was just me.

I'm equally surprised at a lot of the excessive... not bile or hatred, exactly, but strong dislike (one out of ten is a ridiculous score to give anything; even three seems unusually harsh) that this episode has garnered. It wasn't brilliant, certainly; but it wasn't as bad as (to pick a story off the top of my Adipose) Partners In Crime. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that I liked it more than any of the crappier Tennant stories; and it was many moons better than last year's weak-as-diluted-squash Dalek episode.

I think a lot of the haters - I've waited a modern lifetime to use that expression - ought to hang on until they've seen The Almost People before passing absolute judgement; but I fear that it may only strengthen their resolve rather than change their mind. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Still, even if I'm not, I guess a diversity of opinion is better than a paucity of differing viewpoints. It'd be a vewwy borwing world if we all agweed on everyfing.

[Awesome Wells]

It's more of a "meh" reaction from me, than a "yeuch".

Ditto. It's always nice when someone else's opinion is exactly the same as one's...

(I really liked Fear Her though!)

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

Even Huw Edwards's "acting"?

[Jon Masters]

Not really sure where the idea that lots of people hated it has come from - only 3 people rated it lower than 5/10.

I consider a rating of 5/10 to mean "It was OK, but it wasn't great - there was as much I liked about it as I didn't like, or that the great moments were matched by equally not so great bad moments". In other words, an average episode.

That doesn't mean I can't come up with a list of all the things I didn't like in it, but I'll happily adjust my score for the double if next week's has less turgid moments and more good ones.

[Andrew Curnow]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

Even Huw Edwards's "acting"?

No, despite Huw Edwards's acting!

Genuinely, though, I think Fear Her's a little gem. Personally speaking, it was the first time I finally accepted Tennant's Doctor as The Doctor (it took almost all of season 2 for him to even halfway win me over I'm afraid) so I have a certain fondness for it because of that. But also there's a lot of great ideas in there - and the graphite monster is just a brilliantly absurd, and yet fiercely logical (within the story) idea. And I like the bit with the jam too.

Plus edible ball bearings, of course.

[Perry Vale]

AND FFS WITH THE PREGNANCY SCAN / EYEPATCH WOMAN !!!!!

I really don't understand the level of disapproval from people about this, it only took up about 10 seconds of the story. The so-called "classic" series ran a 30-60 second 'reprise' of the previous episode for twenty six years! Why is it wrong when the new series does it?

[Perry Vale]

Actually, I feel I ought to say (despite posts that might well suggest otherwise) that I didn't actually dislike it.

I'd like to add that too. Watched it a couple more times now, and I enjoyed it a little more each time. Some very good bits, special effects (make up), dialogue, and various bits (the microwaved plate), but I do echo the point made by Si Hunt in the similarities to 42, WoM and other NuWho 'base under siege' stories and forgettable casts/characters. I didn't really care what was happening until the Doctor became a ganger, which was a tad on the late side...

On first view I'd have given a six, but will plump for a respectable 7/10 for now. Could be revisited after seeing the conclusion.

What's with the snowglobe?

[Jon Masters]

The so-called "classic" series ran a 30-60 second 'reprise' of the previous episode for twenty six years! Why is it wrong when the new series does it?

It ran resolutions to cliffhangers from the previous episode only, not from previous stories - it answered the questions that were asked. We're unlikely to get any answers to either of these 'arc features' for many many weeks, and why remind us again - if you've seen other episodes this season you know about them, and if that was your first episode you haven't got a clue what they are there for.

It's also not presented as a 'previously on DW' - it's sledgehammered into the current story. The last episode ended with Amy and Rory going to bed while the Doctor scans her; this one started (presumably) some time later, and the Doctor is still running exactly the same scan. Is he doing this every waking minute that Amy is in the TARDIS ?

[Perry Vale]

When you start using words like 'sledgehammered', I fear we are not watching the same programme. The Tardis crew relaxing in the console room in the first scene of an episode. I'd call that more on the subtle side, than sledgehammering. Ditto for Amy creeping around dark corridors with dangerous crazy gangers on the loose. Each to their own though.

and if that was your first episode you haven't got a clue what they are there for.

And if that was your first episode, why should you be excluded from the ongoing story?

[Si Hunt]

I really don't understand the level of disapproval from people about this, it only took up about 10 seconds of the story. The so-called "classic" series ran a 30-60 second 'reprise' of the previous episode for twenty six years! Why is it wrong when the new series does it?

They didn't show the exact same clip every episode in a series though! And there's a principle behind this as well; the old series only didn't expect you to remember the last few seconds of the previous weeks episode. The new series expects us not to remember a plot point that we've been told about every Saturday for the last five weeks.

It's particuarly ironic given just a few weeks ago Moffat was justifying the non-explanation for regeneration etc. not being recapped this year because "it's about time we admitted we had loyal viewers who watch every week".

Si.

[davethesailor]

I must confess that I struggled to follow/keep-up with a lot of this tonight! Serious question. Do 10 year old kids understand the plotlines of stories like this?

[Si Hunt]

I thought the acid thing wasn't a particuarly wise addition to the plot, Dave, and didn't help understanding. What was it used for? I THINK the shipping of acid to the "mainland" was just what the factory did, and was a side issue from the 'bio tissue building substance' which was used to manufacture "Gangers" to handle the dangerous acid. But it meant there were two totally seperate liquid substances involved having different purposes in the plot. Maybe instead of acid it should have been a dangerous furnace or radioactivity or something? When the acid was leaking towards the TARDIS and the gunge was leaking elsewhere, it started to get a little confusing. Anyway, why were they shipping acid to the mainland anyway? Why did the acid exist just on this island?

Si.

[FlyingBeastie]

I'd have to politely disagree that anything that only takes up 15 seconds is "filler"

It is filler. Seconds in real life and on films/television happen much differently.

As an example, take the following clip from the film "Dear Frankie". It's literally one minute (but it won't feel like it): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7lA0cEFxPM

Look, that scene didn't need to take as long as it did or at least it shouldn't have been solely devoted to seeing Jennifer's ganger become formed. That scene could've easily been picked up with having Cleaves spit out her exposition as we watched her ganger get formed.

I'm equally surprised at a lot of the excessive... not bile or hatred, exactly, but strong dislike (one out of ten is a ridiculous score to give anything;

Not when you consider that the person is annoyed that she just spent 40 odd minutes watching something as about as interesting as a video about different kinds of paint drying. And given the episode we got last week... 1/10 was definitely warranted.

but it wasn't as bad as (to pick a story off the top of my Adipose) Partners In Crime. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that I liked it more than any of the crappier Tennant stories; and it was many moons better than last year's weak-as-diluted-squash Dalek episode.

I'm not gonna come out and say "Partners in Crime" was the bestest Doctor Who ever, but at least I felt alive while watching it (I know you saw redlettermedia's Star Wars reviews, so you'll get the following reference)- it was dumb, but it was fun. Everyone in the "Rebel Flesh" might as well have had Ambien capsules for heads I was so bored.

"Rebel Flesh" is still not as bad as "Fear Her", but it's in that league of "An Episode I'll Never Voluntarily Watch Again".

Funny you should bring up he Dalek episode- now, that's an episode that should've been given a two-parter, granted, it's an episode that really serves no purpose whatsoever other than introduce the new "Dalek Playset" (batteries sold separately)

And "Rebel Flesh"? So far, serves no other purpose than to set up having a clone of The Doctor that may/may not be The Doctor we saw get shot in the opening two-parter.

Also, a 1/10 is warranted because we're halfway through this first half of the 6 series and I feel like I haven't seen anything happen other than 14 hours of Doctor Who get wasted in mediocrity and mind numbingly boringness.

It ran resolutions to cliffhangers from the previous episode only, not from previous stories - it answered the questions that were asked. We're unlikely to get any answers to either of these 'arc features' for many many weeks, and why remind us again - if you've seen other episodes this season you know about them, and if that was your first episode you haven't got a clue what they are there for.

It's also not presented as a 'previously on DW' - it's sledgehammered into the current story. The last episode ended with Amy and Rory going to bed while the Doctor scans her; this one started (presumably) some time later, and the Doctor is still running exactly the same scan. Is he doing this every waking minute that Amy is in the TARDIS ?

Massively agree. And Si, even if they are different scenes, we don't need it repeatedly shown to us. Again, not only is it annoying, but it's filler yet again that wastes time and it's obvious the writer doesn't mind relying on it since his own story doesn't have anything of substance to start off with.

For instance (whether you liked the subplot or not) Rose in series 4. Were whole sequences devoted to her? No. In fact, in "Midnight" we see her for a split second as the action is unfolding.

What's being done this series is akin to having someone repeatedly explain in more detail each time the punchline of a joke you didn't find particularly funny in the first place.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

It is filler. Seconds in real life and on films/television happen much differently.

Can you explain what you mean by this odd statement (or odd youtube clip)? All I was saying is that, as far as I'm aware, 15 seconds in the running time of a 45 minute episode is neither here nor there, and it's VERY unlikely to put in a scene at the scripting stage to simply "fill" in that much time, when much more than that can be made up later with the pacing of scenes and editing. Maybe you mean something different by the word "filler" to what I mean... it seems you mean "scene that I didn't like".

[Andrew Curnow]

I agree - 15 seconds is hardly filler. Or if it is, it's very unsuccessful because it's only 'filled' 15 seconds. If an episode was under-running by 15 seconds they could just bung in a slightly longer trailer for some other program at the end of it.

"Filler" to my mind is padding stuff that fills up an episode that would be under-running without it. Like the scene of Dr Tyler running around Omega's corridors only to get recaptured and taken back to where he started from in The Three Doctors. Or most of episode 3 of Warrior's Gate.

[SiHart]

I wouldn't have said the gag (for that's what it was, nothing more, nothing less) was filler. It's hardly just there to use up screen time in an episode that's under running. It's there to amuse the audience, and it made me smile. I think you just don't like the gag much, that's all and are finding arguments to justify that.

And most of episode 3 of Warriors' Gate, Mr Curnow, is there to help explain the historical context of the story, although it might just be some stylish wondering through black and white photos of Powys Castle...

[Jason Thompson]

A few thoughts and repsonses to comments made so far:

The TARDIS parking gag in Fear Her is not filler, it's a gag. Is every little gag in Doctor Who that doesn't directly affect the plot filler? If you don't like it, fine, but that's no reason to try and justify it by dismissing it as filler. It's just a gag you didn't like.

The ongoing arc elements don't need to be shoehorned into every episode as if we won't remember things week to week. Classic Who ran a reprise of a cliffhanger every week. It did not shoehorn in something from part 1 into part 6 of a story just to keep us all up to speed on how we got to part 6. Even new Who hasn't gone to these lengths with arc elements before now.

The acid was a ridiculous addition to add peril to the story and justify the use of Gangers. It is also acid from the B-movie dictionary, i.e. a corrosive liquid that eats anything the plot requires it to eat, rather than anything resembling real acid. And why did a power surge on the island cause solid pipes to suddenly start springing leaks?