My video on the issue of the BBC's support of Transphobia: th-cam.com/video/aN4uc0HZrWE/w-d-xo.html My video on the BBC's response to complaints of its reporting: th-cam.com/video/skh81N5lcYY/w-d-xo.html My short on why I'll continue to put up the note at the front of these: th-cam.com/users/shortsHpwwzjzFXiE Shaun's 1st video, which includes some additional confirmed information: th-cam.com/video/b4buJMMiwcg/w-d-xo.html Shaun’s 2nd video, which follows how the BBC is trying to dodge accountability for all of this: th-cam.com/video/qfjTG6SVjmQ/w-d-xo.html Shaun’s 3rd video, following him escalating his complaints: th-cam.com/video/fRn1UZ4fhdE/w-d-xo.html Shaun's 4th video, covering the BBC's response: th-cam.com/video/3F7GW7Ro4OQ/w-d-xo.html Laura Kate Dale's protest speech outside the BBC offices: th-cam.com/video/hBjGnWkwAjI/w-d-xo.html
I like this story, but I've never forgiven it for being about the night Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein but making it about how important and special her husband was.
I know this is moreso related to Ascension of the Cybermen but I find it weird how after Ashad/The Lone Cyberman first shows up, the Doctor states that she wouldn't lose anyone else she knows to being turned into Cybermen and yet in the next episode seems to casually take all 3 human companions to the end of the Cyber Wars...
I do really like this episode and consider it to be one of the strongest episodes from this era, but I really get where you're coming from on this one. The clinical and often callous approach to character deaths has definitely been something that's bothered me about this era right from the start. It genuinely feels like Chibnall saw all the fan complaints about Moffat's apparent inability to let his characters stay dead and then decided to massively overcorrect. The deaths don't have any emotional impact or feel like they're being done in service of the story, they just come across as incredibly mean-spirited and emotionally manipulative. Also, vis a vis the whole "save the poet, save the universe" thing, I totally get your frustrations over it, but for me personally, the thing that really bugged me about that scene is how little pushback the Doctor gets from her companions. This is another recurring problem I have with this era, Thirteen's companions never actually call her out or challenge her actions. Even as the Doctor is saying this highly questionable stuff and treating them like they're her lessers, the three of them don't argue back with her or try and refute her points. It truly betrays a massive power imbalance between the Doctor and the companions, and it's incredibly annoying that it never gets challenged, even in a scenario like this where it would feel incredibly appropriate
The odd funny thing about Frankenstein monster being inspired by a hideous monster is that Frankenstein monster was describe as beautiful except for being giant and having weird yellow eyes in the book. Also Victor Frankenstein love interest/adopted sister Elizabeth was describe a beautiful blonde that makes poems about the beauty of the world. It would have been hilarious if there was a joke about the 13th Doctor inspiring that charter.
In the words of the 11th Doctor: "Nobody important? Blimey, that's amazing! Do you know, in 900 years of time and space I've never met anyone who wasn't important before."
It might be interesting to have a story with a "famously influential historical figure" who The Doctor doesn't get to save, and as a result of that, *we've* never heard of them, and whatever they were "supposed" to have done, never happened.
16:35 BANG ON!! My favourite quote on this "Percy Shelley: his poetry is so important that it's worth millions of lives. Mary Shelley: only important cause she ripped off Kit Pedler"
I mean I guess to be fair in the universe of the show the Cybermen weren't created by Kit Pedler, they were a legit alien race. And I've been thinking about this some more and while they're saying that Shelley got the idea of this being of multiple body parts from Ashad, the fact of the matter is that is only a concept. The actual words, themes, characters of the Frankenstein book would have still come from Mary's mind.
* his _writings,_ actually. He was more than a poet - he was an early advocate of peaceful protest, and his writings on politics and social justice in general inspired people like Marx, Gandhi and ultimately Martin Luther King.
I really liked Whittaker's speech in this episode, cuz of the context of every previous episode. Up till now, Thirteen's been trying very hard to be nice. Never cruel, never cowardly. But now, she just can't do it. Now, she has to let the bad guys win, in order to save a life. It's like when Eleven started out trying to move on from what he did in his past lives, but then in the events of The Beast Below, he's forced to make a cruel decision of whether to kill humanity, euthanize a space whale, or let it suffer. The Doctor was so close to finally moving on from all that trauma, and then she gets pulled back into it.
The Haunting of Villa Diodati is still my personal favourite story of the Jodie Whittaker Era, being a perfect mixture of a historical haunted house story and a Cyberman story in one. The concept was solid and executed extremely well, plus the Doctor was placed into a situation she couldn't easily sonic her way out of. The design and performance of the Lone Cyberman was very creepy and effective, showing off just how menacing the Cybermen can be and Ashad brought a new dimension to them in the same way Davros did with the Daleks. A brilliant quasi-setup even if it doesn't properly pay off well in the final episode.
I love Mary Shelley and the implication that Ashad inspired Frankenstein REALLY bugged me too. What really inspired Mary Shelley was so much more interesting and it wasn't just one thing. Frankenstein is one of my favorite books and oh that line irked me. I do get your frustration with the Doctor's speech at the end but it doesn't bother me as much because the rest of the episode was so high quality, it still felt like a breath of fresh air in the Chibnall era. That being said, I have a bias because I've always been fascinated by this particular group of romantics and not many people know that they all hung out together and were considered pretty wild for their time. I always said I would love a movie about them and this episode was like "finally something fairly mainstream is talking about this"! It's feels so validating for some weird reason to have your niche history fixation acknowledged.
1:18 "...what is this building to? [...] Not a whole lot." could sadly be used to describe the whole thirteenth doctor era. I so hope Jodie gets the chance to shine with a different (Big Finish) production team.
While I’m not a massive fan of “X historical person did Y only happened because of time travel shenanigans” its something thats ended up as a staple of Sci-Fi shows in general. But it comes up in Doctor Who a lot more because they have a story set in history (Earth’s, specifically) roughly every third episode. Most historical Doctor Who episodes with famous characters fall into this trope, so it doesn’t bother me any more or less here. This isn’t even the first time there’s been a Doctor Who story where Sci-Fi shenanigans inspired Mary Shelly to write Frankenstein. The last time was in a comic (I think either as part of an Annual or in the Battles in Time comics). Also, a flawed ending doesn’t ruin the whole story for me personally which is why I still like this episode as well as the episode that comes after it.
I think this pisses a lot of people off more because real-life people had attempted to pretend that Mary herself didn’t write it - he just ghostwrote it for her - and this just nails that preconception in.
God, that Mary Shelley thing is so frustrating especially in the context of it being Mary Shelley specifically and how prevalent the claim that Percy Shelley effectively ghost wrote Frankenstein is. Like, give this woman a goddamn break
"...being the one person who says Can You Hear Me is the best" it's definitely my favourite of that season, not sure about the era. You make a convincing case here, agree with the philosophical/political points generally, I just remembered the horror being cool and forgot the climax tbh.
If the distinctions the Doctor implicitly made about the relative value of lives was an explicit theme it might be interesting to me, as like a dark exploration of utilitarianism, but as a soaring speech about the specialness of this life with no consideration of the lives that have been lost it's just thoughtless elitism.
I think the difference between the deaths of Fletcher and the maid is that they were already dead by Ashard's hand and that they HAVE to move on because the threat is still looming With Percy Shelly its that the choice to let him live or die is in the Doctor's hands. "The only choices you have are bad ones but you still have to choose." I absolutely agree with you regarding Doctor's reasoning. should've been along the lines of 'we have already lost 2 people today, I'm not losing anyone else.'
Thing about that is while the deaths of Fletcher and the maid may be beyond the the Doctor's control, they are not beyond the writer's control. And by callously killing them off and barely drawing attention to them it still sends the thematic message that their lives don't matter, but Shelley's DOES
I do think it's a logical rabbit hole when Doctor Who decides that we only matter if we are recorded in history. A "normal" person could do an extraordinary or even a mundane thing that impacts the future. They might save someone else's life, they might foster 50 children, they might be in the right place at the right time. If a side character dies who shouldn't die it could lead to 100s of potential people not existing because the family tree gets cut off? Taking anyone out of history is catastrophic. I think Back to the Future had a better read on that when a minor event gets multiplied the further into the future you go. It's such an inane take and it's quite hubristic in implying that unless you are a noted creative your life can't have had a noticeable impact on the future.
I’m glad someone finally said it 🫢 it’s unbearably over rated for me. Like bar Ashad being a terrific representation of the Cybermen we’ve not had since the 60s, for me it’s just like… there’s nothing that amazing as people say.
Tbf, The Waters of Mars ultimately does make clear that Adelaide's death (like Shelley's in this case) *is* more important to history than those of her crew. It's treated as obscene that the Doctor as a person acts like that, and gauges the worth of people's lives by their historical importance-but ultimately, the episode is about the fact that Adelaide's survival has the potential to disrupt history, much as Shelley's death could here, where Mia and Yuri's doesn't.
The issue here is Percy Shelly’s death wouldn’t have the ramifications it implies. In fact you could argue that the time stream would fix itself with Mary filling in for Percy under his name. She basically does that when he dies in real life anyway when she edits her late husband’s writings and gets it published. Out of all the authors there it could be argued his work is the least historically significant.
At the times percy wasn't rich. He was in considerable debt, cut off from his parents partly for his activism for religious freedom and for the fact he wanted to use his family's immense wealth to help the poor and down trodden. The reason why his work lives on today is mostly because of mary. I agree that the framing is all wrong and that the doctor shouldn't value him more for being "a great man", but because he's a human being, but the doctor has a habit of doing that with historical figures. She likely has a historical bingo card.
THANK YOU. I really hate the classist casual outlook on the death of “unimportant” people from this era. It also really doesn’t fit the compassion Whittaker gave her Doctor. MILD DISCWORLD SPOILER This made me think of an exchange between Vimes and a villain when Vimes explained how the baddie’s plan had resulted in the deaths of bystanders, and the villain asked “were they important.” And Vimes says something like “I was almost feeling sorry for you right up until you said that.”
Here's the thing: this story feels, at its core, very classic. Not classic Who, classic literature. It takes a lot of its story beats from the works of 19th century writers. Again, not just Mary Shelley but others of that time. It's a stylistic choice that allows for Ashad to absolutely juxtapose himself into it. It's also, and I've mentioned this before, the template for a lot of British, in this case English, modern stories, be they novels, film, television or theatre. Is Percy Bysshe Shelley an important literary figure? Not immediately, but I do think his work has inspired other, perhaps more well-known authors to write, and those authors themselves have inspired others, and so on. I also think you're confusing the Doctor's sense of urgency with a disinterest in the death of Fletcher the valet (with a hard t) and the maid. In fact, their demises are made all the more tragic by dint of their unimportance to the overall story. They're collatoral damage, nothing more. Let's be honest, if Fletcher wasn't played so memorably, his death would be less impactful. The maid's death would lack the weight it does if we don't think, just for a second, that Ashad will kill baby William. It's basically drama 101 at the end of the day. I also think you're massively overthinking your point about Mary Shelley's influence regarding her most famous creation. It also seems an odd stick to beat the story with, as it was written by a woman in any case. Personally, I think it's a fine story with plenty to like. I certainly don't think it's earned your vitriol in the way you seem to think it has.
@@Gemma-Majoran I merely meant that, had Mary fulfilled the same function in the story, this would have more likely been seen as shedding a positive spotlight on a female author and that the "words of a great person vs the lives of supposedly lesser people'' issue would have either got an easier ride or not been highlighted at all. I'm suggesting that the 'outrage' shown here feels oddly manufactured and is unconsciously hypocritical. I get the argument; I just think it is overthought and overstated.
I don’t even like Frankenstein as a novel, but as someone who likes Sci Fi, Mary Shelley’s contribution to the western canon of sci fi is flipping huge, so… yeah taking away the influence of her own mind and saying oh it was inspired by a run in with aliens… not ok!
That's a valid issue. I would some people definitely have a bigger impact ("importance") on history than others, but that's not who the Doctor is. She is true-good character who doesn't deal with levels of importance and should care for everyone regardless of their "value".
Thank you for calling out the episode for stealing Frankenstein from Mary Shelley and claiming it was inspired by the Cyberman. It’s infuriating to see this episode praise Percy Shelley as important enough to risk billions of lives but then claim Mary Shelley ripped off Doctor Who. That killed this episode for me and I’ve never wanted to revisit it.
I thought this episode got so tantalisingly close to what I've have always thought of as the 'best' kind of Doctor Who: the eerie, unearthly, creepy kind; the bordering-on-Lovecraftian kind. It doesn't really matter that the strangeness usually ends up being just a bunch of aliens, because okat, Doctor Who is about aliens, fine. But to my mind it's always more effective when it goes for a supernatural tone, even if it isn't allowed to have actual ghosts, vampires, whatever. The big question is, when it drops back into (in-universe) science and explains how the aliens were doing the technological thing that the Humans mistook for phantoms or whatever - sort of Who's equivalent of the Scooby-Doo de-masking moment - how awkward a thud does it do it with? This was one of the ones that thudded a bit hard for my taste, if I'm honest. As for Jodie's sometimes-callous Doctor, it sits badly with me, but not so much because she was being callous. I tend to think of the Doctor as an intrinsically evil person, driven as insane by the Schism as the Master was, but who still retains a clear bead on what's right and wrong and, unlike the Master, fights their own impulses in order to stay on the right side of that line. So I don't object to seeing the Doctor failing occasionally, as with the 'Time Lord Victorious' moment. But with Thirteen, it just didn't feel like the writers actually *meant* to do it. When it happened - as here with the Shelleys, or the infamous case of Graham's rejected heart-to-hearts in 'Can You Hear Me?' - it just comes across as clunky and incongruous. And where they explain it, like in the latter case when they said they were trying to show how it can be difficult to know how to respond when someone shares things like that with you, it just didn't ring true. I mean, for us it would be hard, yeah. But we're not Time Lords literally millennia old. I think these failings aren't just the Doctor not being able to maintain their own high standard, so much as they are writing shortfalls.
I have the fairly standard opinion of this episode - your argument is totally right, it just doesn’t bother me that much (right now). But I’m glad to hear you share a controversial opinion.
Such a huge attitude shift from "Nobody important? Blimey, that's amazing. You know that in nine hundred years of time and space and I've never met anybody who wasn't important before."
I elaborated on this in one of my comments but I think it's fair to say that there's a fair amount of difference between saying "some people are more important to history/or will have more impact on a world-wide scale than some people" and "only certain people are important". It's not as if the Doctor wanted anyone to die in this situation, it's just stating that Percy's death will have extreme ramifications, not that it was cool that those other people died.
Honestly throughout the entire Chibnall era I feel we were so starved of good episodes that we would cling onto anything half decent and act like it was great. There are so many episodes, like Rosa or Can You Hear Me? that I did not and still do not understand the praise for.
I completely agree. Sadly I don’t think we got any great episodes in the whole chibnall era. Some were decent, but not nearly as many as there should have been
I'm very happy to see someone address how much it falls apart, this is a great story in many ways but the way it heralds Percy Shelley and when Ashaad starts murdering the "unimportant people" instead of at least trying to upgrade them it always bothered me. The Doctor should argue that every life is important and not that Percy Shelley is important because he's a writer and words matter. However, I don't fully agree with everything you said and I still think this episode is one of the better of the era as there's so much good here. I don't mind as much about Mary Shelley being inspired by Ashaad in the story, though it does feel contradictory that Percy is so important and his words matter so much in this but Mary was simply inspired by the Cybermen. This could have been such a great story with the latter half tweaked and rewritten
Good, honest review and fair points well made. If it helps your head canon, Lord Byron’s valet, the real William Fletcher outlived Byron, nursing him in his final illness in Europe. It didn’t go terribly well after Byron’s death - he ‘forgot’ to leave Fletcher a legacy. The date of Frankenstein being written - 1818 I think - and Fletcher being in Europe with Byron absolutely match, so if it helps I just imagine Fletcher being out for the count in ‘Deodati’. I rather enjoy the episode and clearly don’t have your concerns as strongly as you do, but I do share them as they are relevant points.
It's still my favourite of the Whittaker era, but your complaints are very valid and I understand them. If you're interested, there's a couple of Big Finish audios where Mary Shelly travels with the Eighth Doctor.
This video gave me very strong proof that the memory cheats. I don't know if you'd brought up the points about words and lack of acknowledgment of the deaths prior to Shelley's near-death in your previous review, but I had forgotten them entirely. The things that you list as being good are the things I remember, along with a meta-reference that was brilliantly acted, when the Doctor gets very vehement about Ryan not going to look for the Cyberman. I haven't rewatched any of Whittaker's episodes aside from a few early in her first series, and I am not a critical watcher on a first go usually. I get sucked down into the story (the coda of Orphan 55 is the exception that proves the rule, because the back half to the speech I was really tossed out of the episode). I don't notice things until a second or third watch. This is why I appreciate the take two reviews, because you're pointing out things that you notice the second time through, and it makes them clearer to me when I watch an episode again. I am curious about one thing, and it may be trivial, but it's gotten stuck in my brain: could any of the works that Percy Shelley wrote following this encounter be similarly "influenced" by it, the way the story implies Frankenstein was influenced by Mary Shelley's encounter with Ashad? I haven't ready any of Percy Shelley, sadly, though I've read Frankenstein. I also wonder if your feelings would be the same if it were Mary who had the macguffin rather than Percy, and her being the one the Doctor's speech was about. Thank you so much for the commentary. I enjoy hearing it!
12 is pretty callous and disregards death at times as well. They know it's an inevitability with what they're doing in the universe and those killed can't all be pampered with boohoos and pats on the back unfortunately. Into the Dalek, right off the bat for them.. Sure they were 'fresh' but it was freshly callous. Also stealing a homeless man's coat in their first episode was a bit callous. 12 is still currently my favorite. (apologies for poor grammar)
Didn't 12 trade his watch for the homeless man's coat though, rather than outright steal it? Pretty sure he says that when he meets up with Clara in the restaurant
The thing with 12, is his attitude was frequently corrected by Clara. He also battles with his "good man" complex, and he is a well rounded, three dimensional person with contradictory behaviour. When he tries to give Clara her chance to make her own decisions in Kill the Moon, Jenna Coleman delivers an absolute banger of a speech telling him off, and it's wonderful! And he learns! Whereas with 13, no one tells her she's wrong, she doesn't change, and she isn't challenged the way Clara challenged Capaldi. I fully agree, 12 is my favourite for many many reasons! And while he can also be pretty harsh, it's dealt with differently
@@HeidiSholl The thing is, there are several points where the companions do try to call out the Doctor for her actions during this era, but she (and by extension the writers) doesn't take their complaints seriously. Anytime the companions, or indeed any character, call her out and brings one of her character faults to the forefront, she almost always brushes it off with a flippant or jokey comment. It feels like the writers are genuinely afraid to have Thirteen be genuinely depicted as a flawed character whose actions get subjected to scrutiny, and maybe this is down to the optics of having characters point out the failings of the first female Doctor, but it comes across as frustrating because it ends up feeling like they're actively rejecting any chance for introspection and character growth
@@christianwise637 Yes, this exactly! I noticed this in other episodes (tbh, I've only seen Jodie's run once through, so my memory isn't spot on). I don't like the idea that her poor decisions were waved away like that, and that when she is called out it's brushed over. Also, from the video, I'm reminded of Matt Smiths line "I've never met anyone who wasn't important", and really many many lines from the RTD/ Moffat era which I think were forgotten by Chibnall. "I do what I do because it's right, because it's decent, and above all it's kind", and so on. Lines, and morals which the Doctor before has forgotten and had to relearn, but they always do eventually! But I don't think Jodie's doctor did.
I like to think that Ashad was Mary's inspiration for frankenstein. As vlad the impaler was Stoker's inspiration for Dracula.. There did seem to be an awful lot of unacknowledged deaths, I guess the Thijarians were very busy.
How did I not know about your Jumpcast podcast with Jessie?!? I love both of you, and could (and HAVE) listen to you ramble about nerdy stuff for hours! I have been meaning to rewatch B5 for forever, and started with the first episode already, but now I have an excuse/motivation to jump in. Listening to the first episode now, and loving it!
I think you could read the doctor saying that shelley is 'too important' as the doctor being in the wrong, trying to justify herself using the wrong reasoning, but even then it's still not a good thing by implying that the deaths of the 'unimportant' are fine. not much I think they could've done since it was either set the episode during shelley's death (would totally change the episode) or deal with the fact that shelley has to live because the writers can't really change history like that. and like, I can excuse the 'mary shelley was influenced by these events' because whilst the episode references the book, the book is fairly different from the events. such as how ashad is only similar to adam in the sense that they're both brought back to life through electricity and we don't even know if ashad is truly dead, or how adam curses his creator frankenstein, which I don't remember ashad doing. I get the point, but imo it's different enough that shelley being inspired by the events does not change the fact that the book would be mostly her own ideas aside from a 'dead person brought back to life with electricity' (and imo 'modern prometheus' was actually misused in the episode, it should be more 'whoever created you would be a modern prometheus') and the idea of frankenstein himself would have been her own creation, because like I've said, there's a surface level similarity between adam and ashad, and a good 3/8ths of the genius of the book frankenstein is frankenstein himself tbh. so I get where you're coming from on those points, and yes the enforcement of the 'great men' view of history is a problem and should've been written as the doctor being in the wrong, but I don't think that the fact that mary shelley was inspired by the events is as bad as it could've been. had they gone out and done a scene on mont blanc or referenced ashad being made I think that's when it would've crossed the line. otherwise these are good points that should be discussed more in relation to the episode
Hey Vera, this is kind of unrelated but I was wondering where you got your 13th Doctor coat? I’m planning to buy one and if you have any recommendations for where to get it that would be amazing!
So it took me a few hours to finally get through the video cause Twitter kept distracting me but I felt like I should offer a comment concerning the episode. And I’m sorry in advance, cause this ended up being really long. First of all, I generally agree the episode is overrated. It’s not really “bad” but I don’t really know how it got put on such a high pedestal by some people. The main thing I liked about it is Ashad and sadly that gets screwed up later. On the point about the ghosts, I’m not against the idea of things that aren’t explained in Doctor Who on principle. My issue when it comes to this particular episode is that during the events of this story the ghosts and all the other stuff is being thrown out there to slowly build the mystery of what’s going on (and making us think some supernatural shenanigans are going on). We then reveal it’s a sci-fi explanation but then we’re left with the two mystery people that weren’t explained and then at the last minute we just say, oh I guess they were just some ghosts. Like, you can’t really throw that in at the last minute like that. So there just happened to be real ghosts in the area while all this other wackiness was going on. Really? That feels like a bit of narrative cheat given they were used earlier to make us think other things were supernatural. So on to the point about the great men of history/we can’t let Shelley die thing. So I’m kind of on two minds about this. On the one hand, I do agree that the Doctor should preferably suggest to save Shelley because sacrificing people is not great and his life has value, and focusing on preserving his accomplishments when potentially billions of lives are at stake is an odd move. However, while I think there’s some truth to the Eleventh Doctor’s words that “[he’d] never met a person who wasn’t important before” and that every individual should be valued, I don’t think that necessarily think that contradicts the idea that some lives were more impactful to history than others and that removing those lives from history would radically alter history in a way that would be more significant than others. There’s a reason that the “kill baby H**ler” argument is so popular because affecting that ONE life could potentially change a lot of things in history more so than if you were to remove some random person. That’s not to say that removing that random person couldn’t be tragic or have unforeseen consequences but it’s not unrealistic to assume that it would end up affecting the world at large less than if H**ler and the things he encouraged were allowed to happen. Now you can debate whether doing so would be a good idea at all (ala Genesis of the Daleks) but it would be hard to argue that there wouldn’t be a more notable impact compared to Random Guy #1 trillion. So it’s kind of a complicated scenario to think about. But perhaps the most bizarre part of this dilemma in regards to the episode is how the story ends up immediately undercutting it by introducing another moral dilemma right after it. We reveal that the Doctor could have taken the Cyberium for herself (by making Percy see his own death, which is a whole other can of worms) and then the dilemma becomes give Ashad the Cyberium or he’ll destroy the Earth. So basically in the grand scheme of things the question of whether they should have killed Shelley ends up being kind of immediately dwarfed by this whole new dilemma on a much larger scale. So yeah, the whole thing is really weird. Oh yeah, I’m also not huge on the Mary Shelley Cyberman/Frankenstein inspiration thing either. Tho I think the most annoying me for me personally about that is Mary refers to Ashad as the Modern Prometheus when that title was meant to describe the scientist Frankenstein (as in he’s the one doing something the gods don’t approve of) and not the creature he created. While it can be said both the creator and the creature suffered a lot in the story, stating that the creature is the equivalent of the Modern Prometheus in this episode is a pretty notable misunderstanding of what Mary was going for with that title. Now as for the Back to the Future comparison, thinking about it right now I don’t think the implication was meant to be that black people didn’t truly invent rock and roll. This is because, Marty knew about the song Johnny B. Goode BECAUSE Chucky Barry wrote it and sang it (which I just confirmed through Google). And because he was so effective it essentially allowed him to influence Marty which in turn influenced himself. This isn’t quite like the Beethoven situation The Doctor proposed in Before the Flood, because in that hypothetical there was no original Beethoven human (it was only ever the time traveller who was always him). Also, it’s worth keeping in mind that there is no way that Marvin Barry was gonna be able to capture the entire Johnny B. Goode song on that phone call with Marvin in Back to the Future so it’s more likely that they just got an inkling of music and THEN the whole of the Johnny B. Goode song was built around that. And to circle back to Haunting for a bit I think there’s kind of a similar idea with Mary’s Cyberman Frankenstein inspiration, she noticed something that gave her the germ of the idea that would become the ORIGINAL fully fleshed out story of Frankenstein which couldn’t be said to just be a copy of Ashad. She did what good writers are supposed to do, they took inspiration from events in their live and used that to tell an original story. I really don’t think the writers of Back to the Future or this episode were trying to back hand these creators by saying they weren’t smart enough to come up with their own creations but rather were just throwing out some whacky fictional irony, which Doctor Who has done on a multitude of other occasions such as with H.G. Wells in Timelash and other media properties have also done like how Forrest Gump was influencing Elvis and such. These story beats aren’t necessarily here to undermine the creators accomplishments but more so just to have a bit of fun, at the very least I don’t think there were any sinister intentions in these scenarios.
Yeah let's just retcon that ending so that Ashad got defeated in some clever way by the Doctor and then they took his remains away and Percy Shelly was just in town and it was a huge misunderstanding. I didn't like that ending bit in the cave either because it lead into the finale which as we all know is extremely bad. However those are valid points that you bring up, and yet I still have to call this my favourite episode simply by elimination. Also by the fact that right up until that cave scene it was objectively phenomenal and one of the best episodes of Doctor Who period. Every moment was filled with anticipation and wonder, I was so ecstatic when I first saw it and couldn't believe my eyes because for once there's a really good episode in this forsaken era!
It feels like we lower our standards to accommodate the Chibnall era. Finding the mediocre episodes shining, if they can manage a coherent story, or a consistent moral stance. Comparing them to weak stories of other show-runners, to exalt them. The flaws of Chibnall's writing are consistent through his entire tenure, with no lessons learnt. It's a damned shame, and a missed opportunity for the first female doctor.
It's interesting watching (well, listening to) these reviews and trying to pick out anything from the episodes that really stuck in my memory. I keep finding that unless it had Captain Jack or a Dalek in it, the Whittaker/Chibnall era's just a blur for me. I probably enjoyed the episodes as I was watching them, but next to nothing stuck enough to prompt "I'd like to watch that again" the way most of modern Doctor Who did.
I feel like what the chibnall era tries and fails to do is the point made in Thin Ice where Twelve says if he stops to mourn every death, that more people will die and how having that time is a luxury he cant afford. if it is meant to be in that same vein, it is definitely portrayed/misrepresented as a more cruel and apathetic trait of The Doctor rather than being seen as a self-sacrificing attitude to ones own inner peace only someone with a long life like The Doctor can deal with. of course it is still influenced by the writers perspective of a story, not assuming Chibnall writes death in any particular way, but I agree that in previous series where if a death were to occur, it would be made to matter in a substantial way either by varying characters or the narrative. having a character die, especially a side one, for nothing other than the sake of portraying cruelty/wickedness is wholly inexcusable for what understanding we are meant to gain towards the sanctity of life through the Doctor/companions' interaction with the universe.
I didn't have strong feelings about this episode either way but something always felt off about it and I couldn't work out why. And you've just clicked it into place. It was pitched as an episode about the night Mary Shelsley came up with Frankenstein and it ended up being about her frigging husband. It wasn't about her or her historical impact at all.
Thank you so much for this, I've been saying basically the same thing for years and the fact everyone loves this episode and hasn't picked up the fundamental and deeply frustrating thematic issues befuddles me. I can't stand the "WORDS MATTER" speech, it's one of the worst in Doctor Who quite honestly
I didn't hate this one, but did find it to be less than the sum of its parts. The criticisms here I agree with, and elicited eye rolls from me while watching the episode initially. Also, like with other Chibnall ideas, even intriguing elements like Ashad and the Cyberium ultimately went nowhere in later stories. What hurt it most for me was comparison with other better stories around these events. Especially Ken Russel's 80s film _Gothic,_ and even 8th Doctor Big Finish audio adventures with Mary Shelley. As a person who is both egalitarian and realist, I appreciate the attempt to reconcile the Doctor's ideal of having a "flat team structure" with the practical facts of her being a nearly immortal being with knowledge and experience that unavoidably skews the power dynamic. But this was clunky and perfunctory. I would have preferred for it to have been a running theme that played out over time, woven into the narrative rather than culminating in dropping a speech.
16:24 I’m a bit unclear on something. Does it bother you at other times when DW implies it’s adventures inspired real-world writing/ideas? Or is there something specific about this case that gets your goat?
It does bother me in nearly all case but it’s also one of those things has begun to bug me more and more as time as gone on so I’m much more prickly about it that I used to be.
@@BlackCover95 well I should clarify it bugs me far more with creative works being inspired specifically and I’ll give a pass if the overall vibe is comedic enough (like with day Bill & Ted). And a really easy way to avoid it? Stop with the “great people of history” approach to time travel.
I feel like you keep articulating the main issue I have with most episodes this season. Like, I like a lot of them, but I think they tend to fall apart in the back half. Either they're weirdly paced and rushed or they take some wierd and off turns that I don't like or the resolution is really anticlimactic. It's really wierd, because a lot of them start really well and I'm excited, but then just sort of end, without much more impact.
This era never really clicked with me so by this point it felt like a chore watch each episode. I remember this episode coming out and seeing people love it and being like I guess it's not bad. Even on a rewatch I still don't get it.
Fair comment. It doesn't offend me to the same extent, but I do feel that it falls apart at the end. I agree about the callous way Fletchers death is dealt with, and I'm not a fan of the doctors big speech either.
Random thing to comment about but the in terms of back to the future suggesting that 'rock and roll wasn't invented by black people', well not quite since that scene suggests a bootstrap paradox (Who really composed Beethoven's fifth?)
The characters spend a lot of time talking about the choice of Shelley living or dying when they should be talking about how (or even if) they can keep the cyberium away from the Lone Cyberman. If they can’t, then there is no reason to sacrifice Shelley. Also, the Doctor gives a big speech about being at the summit, alone, left to choose when it’s not in her power to choose at that point. Shelley is the one keeping the Lone Cyberman away, it’s his choice.
For me I’m not fond of plot that try to say it’s the encounter with the doctor that causes a writer to write there greatest books like hg wells in the classic era with the Time Machine and war of the worlds and in this case with marry Shelly with Frankenstein it makes the doctor seem like the character is to important
I think you're completely right, but these things don't ruin the episode for me and I still really love it for everything else you mentioned. Also, I hate Village of the Angels and I can't understand why anyone thinks it's good.
Thank you for articulating all the reasons I didn't like this episode that much. I didn't like how they wrote the guests, I hated that they just killed off the people who were 'socially inferior' but treated the death of a wealthy white man as too terrible for words. I also hated the misogyny on full display in taking Mary Shelly's genius and agency away from her. It annoyed me. A lot. There were some great ideas in this and I would have liked to have seen the original screenplay before Chibnall's 'edits' were applied, because I suspect it was a very different story. The schizophrenic nature of the plotting hints at some serious revisions that slashed across the main thrust of the original.
I rewatched it recently before watching power of the Doctor and it’s still my favorite of her Doctor episodes. I’m not saying it’s the best it’s just my favorite. I actually think Power of the Doctor is one of the best episodes
i liked this episode a lot. for a chibnall episode it was really solid and fun. loved the atmosphere, liked the writing of 13 quite a bit. this was one of the first times i felt like i "got" her take on the doctor. that being said though i completely agree with your points of criticism. the ending falls flat on its face. the chibnall era takes such questionable stances sometimes. it's weird how the character just misses the mark, they were so close because, yes, she should definitely be trying to safe his life, but the specific way that speech was worded manages to sap the doctor of her compassion. had that specific scene been written by RTD he would've *nailed* the tone. the ending doesn´t hit those nerves quite as badly for me though. it just goes out on a bit of a bummer.
ryan bringing up the argument that shelly is only one person is valid but the doctor should push back, is that she doesnt carry this on with up characters in other eps ie timeless child, and as you said, the two others died they are important to someone,
The Haunting of Villa Diodati is the Kerblam of s12. It gets the right vibe for a fantastic doctor who story, but has some serious flaws in the second half when it comes to the messaging. How much these flaws ruin it for you is highly subjective. I still love both episodes, and think they are probably the best of s11 and s12, but I noticed these exact flaws with Haunting the first time I watched it. I’m not gonna pretend that either lacks their flaws, and while I didn’t like the taste those flaws put in my mouth, I still enjoyed the rest of the episode enough that it didn’t bother me as much as odd pacing decisions in It Takes You Away or Can You Hear Me, or the brothers’ acting not landing for me in Demons of the Punjab.
Not to sound like a hipster contrarian (since I feel like some of my criticisms of the previous episodes in this re-watched season may lend credence to the accusation), but I never particularly liked this episode either. I didn't think it was bad, I just found it rather "ho-hum" - I wasn't that interested in anything that was going on, didn't care about any characters (even if my interest was mildly piqued by giving us Mary Shelley & Lord Byron), and was even a little disappointed by The Lone Cyberman as a villain even if I kind of like the design and the character concept. I also think it was a disappointing follow-through on the "foreshadowing" (hard to call it that when it was so blunt, in retrospect) of Harkness' message about the "Lone Cyberman", given that it's just...literally a warning not to do this thing. Where and when did he get the info and why? Is that covered somewhere? It gets called out in this episode, and then the Doctor ignores it and that's it - it doesn't work as any kind of Easter Egg foreshadowing or a real Mystery Box or anything because there wasn't really any mystery to it and this episode just jumps to explaining what Jack was warning against. It is mildly nice that the decision to give him what he wants isn't just fully resolved in this episode, particularly given how late it happens, as it does allow for some buildup of the consequences to hammer home why it was a bad idea. I can't say I had as strong a reaction about the "save Percy Bysshe Shelley" argument from the Doctor, but I fully agree with your point here - past Doctors have often talked about (emphatically) the importance of "ordinary" or "normal" people (exact quotes, etc. are failing me at the moment, but I'm quite sure at least Moffat's Doctors did and pretty sure RTD's did, likely others) and to instead hinge the argument on some kind of "Great Man Theory of History" feels like a true betrayal of the character that (as mentioned in this video) at least deserved different framing if it was going to be kept. Maybe the speech would've worked better if the following episodes leaned into what the text suggested - that the Doctor was giving into that Timelord Victorious mentality, and that's what drove away Ryan & Graham. I think it may be somewhat implied, but the next episodes don't lean into it quite enough for that to work, though this could've been a decent start (or proper forefronting) of a character arc. As you mention, the implication of the events being the inspiration for Frankenstein definitely sours things, especially with the highlight of Percy Shelley's importance - I'm sure the implications you mention are quite unintentional, just stemming from poor foresight/understanding of their implications, but that's a fault of the writers. I know I've soured on "writing and stories are important" narratives/arguments in most things particularly after the infamous speech in the Game of Thrones finale (though I will concede that at least one or two Marvel Comics stories have ended with a similar-ish thesis that I felt worked, partly as it comes across as more praising the writers' predecessors and influences rather than just...stroking their own ego). I don't think this is the first time Doctor Who's had that problem of including an historical figure and kind of implying they're influenced/inspired by the events of the episode (it is a particular issue to deal with when setting an historical episode before/during the figure's key moments) but the combination of the two aspects makes this rather problematic. Oh, and to address your speculation about Village of the Angels: I still haven't rewatched it (or most any Chibnall era episode), but I'd be willing to bet that I find it "pretty good, very effective at times but hampered by its relation to the serial, not quite as great as I thought". I think (looking back in my mind), the peaks and valleys of Chibnall's era were a lot flatter than they seemed at the time, and the best episodes weren't as good as believed and the worst weren't quite as bad as believed, though the average height above "sea level" might be lower than previously thought. Huh, a lot more to say than I expected. Thanks for the video!
There's a few Chibnall episodes that I enjoyed... but if you asked me the ending, I'd have forgotten. The Power of Three comes to mind. Where the episode is fantastic, but the ending is very forgettable. In the case of Power of Three because it is nonsensical. Thanks for pointing out that in this case the ending is nonsensical for The Doctor.
The whole speech is not only gross but _painfully_ out of character for the Doctor. One of the defining character traits of the Doctor in the past has been not only that they find people fascinating, but that they find _all_ people _equally_ fascinating. This is best exhibited with the Eighth Doctor, I find, especially in the books, but it's always been presented. This story spits on that idea.
I also hate the doctors speech at the end, but it feels so painfully in character for Jodi’s doctor. I really believe that this is the how she feels and it exemplifies why I hate this era so much. This and that time she gave Dan a sword and let him kill a bunch of sea-devils literally right after fussing at some non-companion for trying to kill a sea devil. Plus the time she yelled at someone for shooting a spider and then immediately lured them all to their suffocating death. This Doctor prioritizes people who are “important”, is hypocritical, and is just all around a nasty piece of work. I really hate the 13th Doctor.
What the fuck? Everybody just knows Percy as Mary’s husband, if anything the Doctor should have been saving *HER* more than him if we’re yakking importance here.
I don't think I quite agree with overrated. Whilst I agree with the points you make. To me, overrated implies it isn't as good as people say it is, but your only saying it has some bad stuff, not that it doesn't have any good stuff. I suppose the way I judge quality is just rather weird for most people.
I dunno, same reason most art critics aren't good artists I suppose. Recognizing the value of something doesn't mean you can accomplish the same thing.
writers talking about themselves gets pretty weird... like, I hate how self-congratulatory it is when a character has an idea and starts exclaiming about how good the idea is (like the 3 Doctors when they realise they can save Gallifrey)... but on the flip side, it's hilarious when there's stuff like Boom Town which has the Doccy saying it means nothing when sometimes u let one go, and then is told 'only a killer would know that.' which is clearly the writer admitting to being a killer lol
Interesting how the person writing the script wrote the Doctor saying the writer was more important than everyone else🤔 Yeah, I'm sure no ego was involved there at all.
I disagree with your claim that the Doctor did not view Fletcher and the maid as important. She specifically says to Mary Shelley "these people were not meant to die today, neither are you, we can't let history be damaged further", she equates the dead people to the famous writers right there and that their deaths will have an impact on history. She then quickly moves on to focus on who she CAN save, which is what Peter Capaldi's Doctor explained to Clara is his process. I also don't feel like the moment where Ashade possibly inspires Frankenstein devalues Mary Shelley's work and creativity - countless great works of literature are inspired by something the writer saw in their life, and as an irredeemably evil monster Ashade has no real similarities to the victimised Frankenstein's Monster besides the basic appearance of a patchwork person. iirc in real life Mary Shelley was indeed inspired by other influences, notably the experiments that showed passing electricity through the recently deceased causes intense muscle spasms. I do, however, agree that the Doctor's hyperfixation on Shelley's historical "worth" as a famous writer rubs the wrong way. It feels awful, especially in comparison to the Doctor's usual "every life is important" attitude. I know you hate Father's Day, but I think the Doctor sums up the attitude they SHOULD have perfectly in that episode when Rose points out her father will never be famous: "there's a man alive who wasn't alive before. An ordinary man, that's the most important thing in existence. The whole world's different because he's alive". Though ironically he was arguing for Pete's death there, not his life.
I do enjoy the episode but I am totally with you about the issues ig doesn't get me riled as much as you but i love your passion and you have helped me to see that this message is wrong and love the video as ever
Didn't even watch this episode because I knew it was going to mess up things as they usually do whenever they meet famous writers from the past. I also disliked what they did with Shakespeare in The Sandman by implying that Morpheus is responsible for the playwright's genius which is far too much like the elitist twits who try to attribute his works to others.
See I don't mind the Sandman thing as much because the overall implication is that as the lord of Dreams, and the Dreaming being the realm of stories, that he (or beings like him) in some way influence literally EVERY writer. But I do get the foundation of your annoyance there.
We like what we like and none of the stuff brought up really bothers me. I really like this episode but that's Dr Who, one person's favourite episode can be on another's hate list. I really like Robot of Sherwood for example and a lot of my friend's really really don't like it! I love River Song my best friend hates her. What can you do?
This is an interesting take, that I hadn't really considered. One of the things that I liked about the Chibnall Era was the way he brought back some of the feel of the classics, but it seems he also brought back some of the bad things too. The callousness of the deaths, writers pontificating about writers and their importance, and history and literature being affected by the adventure are all examples of that. (Less so In RTD and Moffat's tenure but still sometimes there) Classic Who had ridiculous body counts at times. And the less said about Time Lash, the better
@@bythebreach You're right - all of two years back! TBH, I did look for a review of Timelash on "Council", but I should have double-checked Break Room too. Anyhoo... Now free of spoiler-worry, I can say that at least Mary Shelley was inspired by being in a pretty decent story, as opposed to poor "Herbert" getting his inspiration from the dreck that was Timelash.
I'm a fan of villains. Which is why this episode and Can You Hear Me? work for me personally. Ashad is the most interesting Cyberman of the entire revival. Just as World Enough and Time was the most interesting Nu Who story concerning the Cybermen as a collective. The track record wasn't great until those episodes. As for the historical influence implications on Mary specifically. This is loosely adapted from The Silver Turk. The Big Finish 8th Doctor Cyberman story. Wherein Mary Shelley is his companion. It's weird because this is kind of like the episode 'Dalek' in comparison to BF's 'Jubilee'. The fam arrive here on the same night the 8th Doctor does when Shelley becomes his companion. I'd recommend it if you haven't listened.
I really hate that the same day that I watched your short about how financially supporting JKRowling supports her transphobia, I got an ad on this video for Hogwarts Legacy. TH-cam disgusts me sometimes.
The entire story basically falls apart when the doctor becomes all patronizing about her decision on what is right and completely flips flops on it multiple times. Not to mention the random ghosts that are never explained. I watched this first time after watching the Shakespeare Code and the writing from over a decade ago on a similar set-up completely outclasses this story that wastes such a interesting villain and setting as a concept.
Also to make the “This man is too important,” argument with Percy Shelley is rather laughable. His political ideal aren’t time tested revolutionary in a way that those he influenced wouldn’t come forward and the writers who praise him have proses that are more influence by Milton than Shelley. If anyone here you want to make that argument for its Byron and Mary Shelley. Hell the only reason Percy Shelly’s works gained attention is because Mary edited them and got them published after his death. In many ways a good fiction writer could easily write around Percy Shelley by having Mary be the one responsible for his future works out of inspiration. Like if you are going to do “this person is too important” at least have it be someone who’s work is timeless.
Literally every sci-fi pitfall. _"Atmosphere"_ is just air. Anything of substance this story possesses is ugly. Genuinely great side cast, they add a lot and do make it a fun time. I hate it objectively, like it subjectively.
words do matter. but 'inspiration' as importance or "currency' is awful. Ideas matter, hope matters innovation matters, but ever in a vacuum. We Never know who will be important, and history gets plenty wrong
Except Chibnall clearly express sympathy with TERFS and legitimate disgusting anger with trans bodies in The Power of The Doctor and Whittaker herself has expressed none too subtle TERF, in an episode written by a trans woman (the final episode of the Doctor Who fictional podcast Doctor Who: Redacted). And I'm not giving myself any overdue relevance here, but I've been a defender of the era.
I love this story. Top tier. So let's start with your rather poor arguments, she argues that Percy shelly is important to the future. Because he is. And if you are gonna call this story out on that then all of doctor who needs to be called out also. It doesn't matter that 2 people already died or that more may die soon after because she cannot knowingly let someone as important as shelly die and as 12 so brilliantly puts it , (I'm paraphrasing)they are already dead if we don't want to be like them we need to move on. Writing is important, not quite sure why you have such an issue with it , I heard you but it doesn't make sense to me. The story and writer are important. Implying Frankenstein is written as a result of the Cybermen makes sense and doesn't ruin her importance as you said yourself the story is important right? But regardless of that it's a nice nod on history being influenced by the doctor in lots of random ways like the great fire of London or Amy's sunflowers of van Gogh. It's only removing her importance if you remove the importance. Mary shellys words poured out beautifully, essentially giving it a feel of being done in one night which in reality took several. Ashaad is badass and it's a crying shame the master takes over as the threat (despite me loving Sasha master) because it deserved an ashaad finale. 13 is fantastic in this and so are the supporting cast. Incidentally I have no issue with a high body count, why not? Life isnt fair and they need to give the villains danger which is easiest to do with a body count. I adore haunting of villa diodate and yes I also love village of the angels. I really hope she comes back to write for Russel.
My video on the issue of the BBC's support of Transphobia: th-cam.com/video/aN4uc0HZrWE/w-d-xo.html
My video on the BBC's response to complaints of its reporting: th-cam.com/video/skh81N5lcYY/w-d-xo.html
My short on why I'll continue to put up the note at the front of these: th-cam.com/users/shortsHpwwzjzFXiE
Shaun's 1st video, which includes some additional confirmed information: th-cam.com/video/b4buJMMiwcg/w-d-xo.html
Shaun’s 2nd video, which follows how the BBC is trying to dodge accountability for all of this: th-cam.com/video/qfjTG6SVjmQ/w-d-xo.html
Shaun’s 3rd video, following him escalating his complaints: th-cam.com/video/fRn1UZ4fhdE/w-d-xo.html
Shaun's 4th video, covering the BBC's response: th-cam.com/video/3F7GW7Ro4OQ/w-d-xo.html
Laura Kate Dale's protest speech outside the BBC offices: th-cam.com/video/hBjGnWkwAjI/w-d-xo.html
I like this story, but I've never forgiven it for being about the night Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein but making it about how important and special her husband was.
I know this is moreso related to Ascension of the Cybermen but I find it weird how after Ashad/The Lone Cyberman first shows up, the Doctor states that she wouldn't lose anyone else she knows to being turned into Cybermen and yet in the next episode seems to casually take all 3 human companions to the end of the Cyber Wars...
I do really like this episode and consider it to be one of the strongest episodes from this era, but I really get where you're coming from on this one. The clinical and often callous approach to character deaths has definitely been something that's bothered me about this era right from the start. It genuinely feels like Chibnall saw all the fan complaints about Moffat's apparent inability to let his characters stay dead and then decided to massively overcorrect. The deaths don't have any emotional impact or feel like they're being done in service of the story, they just come across as incredibly mean-spirited and emotionally manipulative.
Also, vis a vis the whole "save the poet, save the universe" thing, I totally get your frustrations over it, but for me personally, the thing that really bugged me about that scene is how little pushback the Doctor gets from her companions. This is another recurring problem I have with this era, Thirteen's companions never actually call her out or challenge her actions. Even as the Doctor is saying this highly questionable stuff and treating them like they're her lessers, the three of them don't argue back with her or try and refute her points. It truly betrays a massive power imbalance between the Doctor and the companions, and it's incredibly annoying that it never gets challenged, even in a scenario like this where it would feel incredibly appropriate
The odd funny thing about Frankenstein monster being inspired by a hideous monster is that Frankenstein monster was describe as beautiful except for being giant and having weird yellow eyes in the book. Also Victor Frankenstein love interest/adopted sister Elizabeth was describe a beautiful blonde that makes poems about the beauty of the world. It would have been hilarious if there was a joke about the 13th Doctor inspiring that charter.
In the words of the 11th Doctor:
"Nobody important? Blimey, that's amazing! Do you know, in 900 years of time and space I've never met anyone who wasn't important before."
It might be interesting to have a story with a "famously influential historical figure" who The Doctor doesn't get to save, and as a result of that, *we've* never heard of them, and whatever they were "supposed" to have done, never happened.
Huh... I feel like at least some form of Doctor Who media must have done that... and if not they should have.
@@CouncilofGeeks There's one 9 and Rose audiobook I believe. A fictional painter that the Dr seems to have heard of dies during an adventure
16:35 BANG ON!!
My favourite quote on this "Percy Shelley: his poetry is so important that it's worth millions of lives. Mary Shelley: only important cause she ripped off Kit Pedler"
I mean I guess to be fair in the universe of the show the Cybermen weren't created by Kit Pedler, they were a legit alien race. And I've been thinking about this some more and while they're saying that Shelley got the idea of this being of multiple body parts from Ashad, the fact of the matter is that is only a concept. The actual words, themes, characters of the Frankenstein book would have still come from Mary's mind.
* his _writings,_ actually. He was more than a poet - he was an early advocate of peaceful protest, and his writings on politics and social justice in general inspired people like Marx, Gandhi and ultimately Martin Luther King.
I really liked Whittaker's speech in this episode, cuz of the context of every previous episode. Up till now, Thirteen's been trying very hard to be nice. Never cruel, never cowardly. But now, she just can't do it. Now, she has to let the bad guys win, in order to save a life. It's like when Eleven started out trying to move on from what he did in his past lives, but then in the events of The Beast Below, he's forced to make a cruel decision of whether to kill humanity, euthanize a space whale, or let it suffer. The Doctor was so close to finally moving on from all that trauma, and then she gets pulled back into it.
The Haunting of Villa Diodati is still my personal favourite story of the Jodie Whittaker Era, being a perfect mixture of a historical haunted house story and a Cyberman story in one. The concept was solid and executed extremely well, plus the Doctor was placed into a situation she couldn't easily sonic her way out of. The design and performance of the Lone Cyberman was very creepy and effective, showing off just how menacing the Cybermen can be and Ashad brought a new dimension to them in the same way Davros did with the Daleks. A brilliant quasi-setup even if it doesn't properly pay off well in the final episode.
I love Mary Shelley and the implication that Ashad inspired Frankenstein REALLY bugged me too. What really inspired Mary Shelley was so much more interesting and it wasn't just one thing. Frankenstein is one of my favorite books and oh that line irked me.
I do get your frustration with the Doctor's speech at the end but it doesn't bother me as much because the rest of the episode was so high quality, it still felt like a breath of fresh air in the Chibnall era.
That being said, I have a bias because I've always been fascinated by this particular group of romantics and not many people know that they all hung out together and were considered pretty wild for their time. I always said I would love a movie about them and this episode was like "finally something fairly mainstream is talking about this"! It's feels so validating for some weird reason to have your niche history fixation acknowledged.
1:18 "...what is this building to? [...] Not a whole lot." could sadly be used to describe the whole thirteenth doctor era. I so hope Jodie gets the chance to shine with a different (Big Finish) production team.
While I’m not a massive fan of “X historical person did Y only happened because of time travel shenanigans” its something thats ended up as a staple of Sci-Fi shows in general. But it comes up in Doctor Who a lot more because they have a story set in history (Earth’s, specifically) roughly every third episode. Most historical Doctor Who episodes with famous characters fall into this trope, so it doesn’t bother me any more or less here.
This isn’t even the first time there’s been a Doctor Who story where Sci-Fi shenanigans inspired Mary Shelly to write Frankenstein. The last time was in a comic (I think either as part of an Annual or in the Battles in Time comics).
Also, a flawed ending doesn’t ruin the whole story for me personally which is why I still like this episode as well as the episode that comes after it.
I think this pisses a lot of people off more because real-life people had attempted to pretend that Mary herself didn’t write it - he just ghostwrote it for her - and this just nails that preconception in.
God, that Mary Shelley thing is so frustrating especially in the context of it being Mary Shelley specifically and how prevalent the claim that Percy Shelley effectively ghost wrote Frankenstein is. Like, give this woman a goddamn break
"...being the one person who says Can You Hear Me is the best" it's definitely my favourite of that season, not sure about the era. You make a convincing case here, agree with the philosophical/political points generally, I just remembered the horror being cool and forgot the climax tbh.
If the distinctions the Doctor implicitly made about the relative value of lives was an explicit theme it might be interesting to me, as like a dark exploration of utilitarianism, but as a soaring speech about the specialness of this life with no consideration of the lives that have been lost it's just thoughtless elitism.
I think the difference between the deaths of Fletcher and the maid is that they were already dead by Ashard's hand and that they HAVE to move on because the threat is still looming
With Percy Shelly its that the choice to let him live or die is in the Doctor's hands. "The only choices you have are bad ones but you still have to choose."
I absolutely agree with you regarding Doctor's reasoning. should've been along the lines of 'we have already lost 2 people today, I'm not losing anyone else.'
Thing about that is while the deaths of Fletcher and the maid may be beyond the the Doctor's control, they are not beyond the writer's control. And by callously killing them off and barely drawing attention to them it still sends the thematic message that their lives don't matter, but Shelley's DOES
I do think it's a logical rabbit hole when Doctor Who decides that we only matter if we are recorded in history. A "normal" person could do an extraordinary or even a mundane thing that impacts the future. They might save someone else's life, they might foster 50 children, they might be in the right place at the right time. If a side character dies who shouldn't die it could lead to 100s of potential people not existing because the family tree gets cut off? Taking anyone out of history is catastrophic. I think Back to the Future had a better read on that when a minor event gets multiplied the further into the future you go. It's such an inane take and it's quite hubristic in implying that unless you are a noted creative your life can't have had a noticeable impact on the future.
I’m glad someone finally said it 🫢 it’s unbearably over rated for me. Like bar Ashad being a terrific representation of the Cybermen we’ve not had since the 60s, for me it’s just like… there’s nothing that amazing as people say.
Tbf, The Waters of Mars ultimately does make clear that Adelaide's death (like Shelley's in this case) *is* more important to history than those of her crew. It's treated as obscene that the Doctor as a person acts like that, and gauges the worth of people's lives by their historical importance-but ultimately, the episode is about the fact that Adelaide's survival has the potential to disrupt history, much as Shelley's death could here, where Mia and Yuri's doesn't.
The issue here is Percy Shelly’s death wouldn’t have the ramifications it implies. In fact you could argue that the time stream would fix itself with Mary filling in for Percy under his name. She basically does that when he dies in real life anyway when she edits her late husband’s writings and gets it published. Out of all the authors there it could be argued his work is the least historically significant.
At the times percy wasn't rich. He was in considerable debt, cut off from his parents partly for his activism for religious freedom and for the fact he wanted to use his family's immense wealth to help the poor and down trodden. The reason why his work lives on today is mostly because of mary. I agree that the framing is all wrong and that the doctor shouldn't value him more for being "a great man", but because he's a human being, but the doctor has a habit of doing that with historical figures. She likely has a historical bingo card.
THANK YOU. I really hate the classist casual outlook on the death of “unimportant” people from this era. It also really doesn’t fit the compassion Whittaker gave her Doctor.
MILD DISCWORLD SPOILER
This made me think of an exchange between Vimes and a villain when Vimes explained how the baddie’s plan had resulted in the deaths of bystanders, and the villain asked “were they important.” And Vimes says something like “I was almost feeling sorry for you right up until you said that.”
Here's the thing: this story feels, at its core, very classic. Not classic Who, classic literature. It takes a lot of its story beats from the works of 19th century writers. Again, not just Mary Shelley but others of that time. It's a stylistic choice that allows for Ashad to absolutely juxtapose himself into it. It's also, and I've mentioned this before, the template for a lot of British, in this case English, modern stories, be they novels, film, television or theatre. Is Percy Bysshe Shelley an important literary figure? Not immediately, but I do think his work has inspired other, perhaps more well-known authors to write, and those authors themselves have inspired others, and so on.
I also think you're confusing the Doctor's sense of urgency with a disinterest in the death of Fletcher the valet (with a hard t) and the maid. In fact, their demises are made all the more tragic by dint of their unimportance to the overall story. They're collatoral damage, nothing more. Let's be honest, if Fletcher wasn't played so memorably, his death would be less impactful. The maid's death would lack the weight it does if we don't think, just for a second, that Ashad will kill baby William. It's basically drama 101 at the end of the day.
I also think you're massively overthinking your point about Mary Shelley's influence regarding her most famous creation. It also seems an odd stick to beat the story with, as it was written by a woman in any case. Personally, I think it's a fine story with plenty to like. I certainly don't think it's earned your vitriol in the way you seem to think it has.
Overthinking and overstating. Had the subject of the Doctor's speech been how Mary Shelley inspired others, I suspect we wouldn't have got this rant.
@@iancossey105 unlikely, shes an authour, and words matter is the core of the issue
@@Gemma-Majoran I merely meant that, had Mary fulfilled the same function in the story, this would have more likely been seen as shedding a positive spotlight on a female author and that the "words of a great person vs the lives of supposedly lesser people'' issue would have either got an easier ride or not been highlighted at all. I'm suggesting that the 'outrage' shown here feels oddly manufactured and is unconsciously hypocritical. I get the argument; I just think it is overthought and overstated.
I don’t even like Frankenstein as a novel, but as someone who likes Sci Fi, Mary Shelley’s contribution to the western canon of sci fi is flipping huge, so… yeah taking away the influence of her own mind and saying oh it was inspired by a run in with aliens… not ok!
That's a valid issue. I would some people definitely have a bigger impact ("importance") on history than others, but that's not who the Doctor is. She is true-good character who doesn't deal with levels of importance and should care for everyone regardless of their "value".
Thank you for calling out the episode for stealing Frankenstein from Mary Shelley and claiming it was inspired by the Cyberman. It’s infuriating to see this episode praise Percy Shelley as important enough to risk billions of lives but then claim Mary Shelley ripped off Doctor Who. That killed this episode for me and I’ve never wanted to revisit it.
Gotta love your dedication to providing your honest, unflinching opinion, knowing that it might piss people off.
I thought this episode got so tantalisingly close to what I've have always thought of as the 'best' kind of Doctor Who: the eerie, unearthly, creepy kind; the bordering-on-Lovecraftian kind. It doesn't really matter that the strangeness usually ends up being just a bunch of aliens, because okat, Doctor Who is about aliens, fine. But to my mind it's always more effective when it goes for a supernatural tone, even if it isn't allowed to have actual ghosts, vampires, whatever. The big question is, when it drops back into (in-universe) science and explains how the aliens were doing the technological thing that the Humans mistook for phantoms or whatever - sort of Who's equivalent of the Scooby-Doo de-masking moment - how awkward a thud does it do it with?
This was one of the ones that thudded a bit hard for my taste, if I'm honest.
As for Jodie's sometimes-callous Doctor, it sits badly with me, but not so much because she was being callous. I tend to think of the Doctor as an intrinsically evil person, driven as insane by the Schism as the Master was, but who still retains a clear bead on what's right and wrong and, unlike the Master, fights their own impulses in order to stay on the right side of that line. So I don't object to seeing the Doctor failing occasionally, as with the 'Time Lord Victorious' moment. But with Thirteen, it just didn't feel like the writers actually *meant* to do it. When it happened - as here with the Shelleys, or the infamous case of Graham's rejected heart-to-hearts in 'Can You Hear Me?' - it just comes across as clunky and incongruous. And where they explain it, like in the latter case when they said they were trying to show how it can be difficult to know how to respond when someone shares things like that with you, it just didn't ring true. I mean, for us it would be hard, yeah. But we're not Time Lords literally millennia old.
I think these failings aren't just the Doctor not being able to maintain their own high standard, so much as they are writing shortfalls.
I have the fairly standard opinion of this episode - your argument is totally right, it just doesn’t bother me that much (right now). But I’m glad to hear you share a controversial opinion.
Such a huge attitude shift from "Nobody important? Blimey, that's amazing. You know that in nine hundred years of time and space and I've never met anybody who wasn't important before."
I elaborated on this in one of my comments but I think it's fair to say that there's a fair amount of difference between saying "some people are more important to history/or will have more impact on a world-wide scale than some people" and "only certain people are important". It's not as if the Doctor wanted anyone to die in this situation, it's just stating that Percy's death will have extreme ramifications, not that it was cool that those other people died.
Honestly throughout the entire Chibnall era I feel we were so starved of good episodes that we would cling onto anything half decent and act like it was great. There are so many episodes, like Rosa or Can You Hear Me? that I did not and still do not understand the praise for.
I completely agree. Sadly I don’t think we got any great episodes in the whole chibnall era. Some were decent, but not nearly as many as there should have been
I'm very happy to see someone address how much it falls apart, this is a great story in many ways but the way it heralds Percy Shelley and when Ashaad starts murdering the "unimportant people" instead of at least trying to upgrade them it always bothered me. The Doctor should argue that every life is important and not that Percy Shelley is important because he's a writer and words matter. However, I don't fully agree with everything you said and I still think this episode is one of the better of the era as there's so much good here. I don't mind as much about Mary Shelley being inspired by Ashaad in the story, though it does feel contradictory that Percy is so important and his words matter so much in this but Mary was simply inspired by the Cybermen. This could have been such a great story with the latter half tweaked and rewritten
Good, honest review and fair points well made. If it helps your head canon, Lord Byron’s valet, the real William Fletcher outlived Byron, nursing him in his final illness in Europe. It didn’t go terribly well after Byron’s death - he ‘forgot’ to leave Fletcher a legacy. The date of Frankenstein being written - 1818 I think - and Fletcher being in Europe with Byron absolutely match, so if it helps I just imagine Fletcher being out for the count in ‘Deodati’. I rather enjoy the episode and clearly don’t have your concerns as strongly as you do, but I do share them as they are relevant points.
It's still my favourite of the Whittaker era, but your complaints are very valid and I understand them. If you're interested, there's a couple of Big Finish audios where Mary Shelly travels with the Eighth Doctor.
This video gave me very strong proof that the memory cheats. I don't know if you'd brought up the points about words and lack of acknowledgment of the deaths prior to Shelley's near-death in your previous review, but I had forgotten them entirely. The things that you list as being good are the things I remember, along with a meta-reference that was brilliantly acted, when the Doctor gets very vehement about Ryan not going to look for the Cyberman. I haven't rewatched any of Whittaker's episodes aside from a few early in her first series, and I am not a critical watcher on a first go usually. I get sucked down into the story (the coda of Orphan 55 is the exception that proves the rule, because the back half to the speech I was really tossed out of the episode). I don't notice things until a second or third watch. This is why I appreciate the take two reviews, because you're pointing out things that you notice the second time through, and it makes them clearer to me when I watch an episode again. I am curious about one thing, and it may be trivial, but it's gotten stuck in my brain: could any of the works that Percy Shelley wrote following this encounter be similarly "influenced" by it, the way the story implies Frankenstein was influenced by Mary Shelley's encounter with Ashad? I haven't ready any of Percy Shelley, sadly, though I've read Frankenstein. I also wonder if your feelings would be the same if it were Mary who had the macguffin rather than Percy, and her being the one the Doctor's speech was about.
Thank you so much for the commentary. I enjoy hearing it!
12 is pretty callous and disregards death at times as well. They know it's an inevitability with what they're doing in the universe and those killed can't all be pampered with boohoos and pats on the back unfortunately.
Into the Dalek, right off the bat for them.. Sure they were 'fresh' but it was freshly callous.
Also stealing a homeless man's coat in their first episode was a bit callous.
12 is still currently my favorite.
(apologies for poor grammar)
I think it's telling that the examples for 12 come from his first two adventures when he openly didn't know how he thought of himself.
Didn't 12 trade his watch for the homeless man's coat though, rather than outright steal it? Pretty sure he says that when he meets up with Clara in the restaurant
The thing with 12, is his attitude was frequently corrected by Clara. He also battles with his "good man" complex, and he is a well rounded, three dimensional person with contradictory behaviour. When he tries to give Clara her chance to make her own decisions in Kill the Moon, Jenna Coleman delivers an absolute banger of a speech telling him off, and it's wonderful! And he learns! Whereas with 13, no one tells her she's wrong, she doesn't change, and she isn't challenged the way Clara challenged Capaldi. I fully agree, 12 is my favourite for many many reasons! And while he can also be pretty harsh, it's dealt with differently
@@HeidiSholl The thing is, there are several points where the companions do try to call out the Doctor for her actions during this era, but she (and by extension the writers) doesn't take their complaints seriously. Anytime the companions, or indeed any character, call her out and brings one of her character faults to the forefront, she almost always brushes it off with a flippant or jokey comment. It feels like the writers are genuinely afraid to have Thirteen be genuinely depicted as a flawed character whose actions get subjected to scrutiny, and maybe this is down to the optics of having characters point out the failings of the first female Doctor, but it comes across as frustrating because it ends up feeling like they're actively rejecting any chance for introspection and character growth
@@christianwise637 Yes, this exactly! I noticed this in other episodes (tbh, I've only seen Jodie's run once through, so my memory isn't spot on). I don't like the idea that her poor decisions were waved away like that, and that when she is called out it's brushed over.
Also, from the video, I'm reminded of Matt Smiths line "I've never met anyone who wasn't important", and really many many lines from the RTD/ Moffat era which I think were forgotten by Chibnall. "I do what I do because it's right, because it's decent, and above all it's kind", and so on. Lines, and morals which the Doctor before has forgotten and had to relearn, but they always do eventually! But I don't think Jodie's doctor did.
I like to think that Ashad was Mary's inspiration for frankenstein. As vlad the impaler was Stoker's inspiration for Dracula..
There did seem to be an awful lot of unacknowledged deaths, I guess the Thijarians were very busy.
I've never liked this either, hadn't analysed why so forensically but I do remember the mountain speech being particularly irksome!
How did I not know about your Jumpcast podcast with Jessie?!? I love both of you, and could (and HAVE) listen to you ramble about nerdy stuff for hours! I have been meaning to rewatch B5 for forever, and started with the first episode already, but now I have an excuse/motivation to jump in. Listening to the first episode now, and loving it!
If you're ever looking for a third voice, let me know. I've podcasted with the Vassals of Kingsgrave on lots of various nerdy things, including Who.
I think you could read the doctor saying that shelley is 'too important' as the doctor being in the wrong, trying to justify herself using the wrong reasoning, but even then it's still not a good thing by implying that the deaths of the 'unimportant' are fine. not much I think they could've done since it was either set the episode during shelley's death (would totally change the episode) or deal with the fact that shelley has to live because the writers can't really change history like that.
and like, I can excuse the 'mary shelley was influenced by these events' because whilst the episode references the book, the book is fairly different from the events. such as how ashad is only similar to adam in the sense that they're both brought back to life through electricity and we don't even know if ashad is truly dead, or how adam curses his creator frankenstein, which I don't remember ashad doing. I get the point, but imo it's different enough that shelley being inspired by the events does not change the fact that the book would be mostly her own ideas aside from a 'dead person brought back to life with electricity' (and imo 'modern prometheus' was actually misused in the episode, it should be more 'whoever created you would be a modern prometheus') and the idea of frankenstein himself would have been her own creation, because like I've said, there's a surface level similarity between adam and ashad, and a good 3/8ths of the genius of the book frankenstein is frankenstein himself tbh.
so I get where you're coming from on those points, and yes the enforcement of the 'great men' view of history is a problem and should've been written as the doctor being in the wrong, but I don't think that the fact that mary shelley was inspired by the events is as bad as it could've been. had they gone out and done a scene on mont blanc or referenced ashad being made I think that's when it would've crossed the line. otherwise these are good points that should be discussed more in relation to the episode
Hey Vera, this is kind of unrelated but I was wondering where you got your 13th Doctor coat? I’m planning to buy one and if you have any recommendations for where to get it that would be amazing!
I honestly don't remember at this point. I got it through an Amazon store but it wasn't Amazon itself, it was a vendor selling through them.
@@CouncilofGeeks thanks for responding! And honestly I probably wouldn’t remember either.
This is the last one I remember watching before we switched to streaming and everything got messed up.
Ooooh, video topic! Best delivered speeches/monologues/dialogues on subjects you hate. That would be a GREAT video!
So it took me a few hours to finally get through the video cause Twitter kept distracting me but I felt like I should offer a comment concerning the episode. And I’m sorry in advance, cause this ended up being really long.
First of all, I generally agree the episode is overrated. It’s not really “bad” but I don’t really know how it got put on such a high pedestal by some people. The main thing I liked about it is Ashad and sadly that gets screwed up later.
On the point about the ghosts, I’m not against the idea of things that aren’t explained in Doctor Who on principle. My issue when it comes to this particular episode is that during the events of this story the ghosts and all the other stuff is being thrown out there to slowly build the mystery of what’s going on (and making us think some supernatural shenanigans are going on). We then reveal it’s a sci-fi explanation but then we’re left with the two mystery people that weren’t explained and then at the last minute we just say, oh I guess they were just some ghosts. Like, you can’t really throw that in at the last minute like that. So there just happened to be real ghosts in the area while all this other wackiness was going on. Really? That feels like a bit of narrative cheat given they were used earlier to make us think other things were supernatural.
So on to the point about the great men of history/we can’t let Shelley die thing. So I’m kind of on two minds about this. On the one hand, I do agree that the Doctor should preferably suggest to save Shelley because sacrificing people is not great and his life has value, and focusing on preserving his accomplishments when potentially billions of lives are at stake is an odd move.
However, while I think there’s some truth to the Eleventh Doctor’s words that “[he’d] never met a person who wasn’t important before” and that every individual should be valued, I don’t think that necessarily think that contradicts the idea that some lives were more impactful to history than others and that removing those lives from history would radically alter history in a way that would be more significant than others. There’s a reason that the “kill baby H**ler” argument is so popular because affecting that ONE life could potentially change a lot of things in history more so than if you were to remove some random person. That’s not to say that removing that random person couldn’t be tragic or have unforeseen consequences but it’s not unrealistic to assume that it would end up affecting the world at large less than if H**ler and the things he encouraged were allowed to happen. Now you can debate whether doing so would be a good idea at all (ala Genesis of the Daleks) but it would be hard to argue that there wouldn’t be a more notable impact compared to Random Guy #1 trillion. So it’s kind of a complicated scenario to think about.
But perhaps the most bizarre part of this dilemma in regards to the episode is how the story ends up immediately undercutting it by introducing another moral dilemma right after it. We reveal that the Doctor could have taken the Cyberium for herself (by making Percy see his own death, which is a whole other can of worms) and then the dilemma becomes give Ashad the Cyberium or he’ll destroy the Earth. So basically in the grand scheme of things the question of whether they should have killed Shelley ends up being kind of immediately dwarfed by this whole new dilemma on a much larger scale. So yeah, the whole thing is really weird.
Oh yeah, I’m also not huge on the Mary Shelley Cyberman/Frankenstein inspiration thing either. Tho I think the most annoying me for me personally about that is Mary refers to Ashad as the Modern Prometheus when that title was meant to describe the scientist Frankenstein (as in he’s the one doing something the gods don’t approve of) and not the creature he created. While it can be said both the creator and the creature suffered a lot in the story, stating that the creature is the equivalent of the Modern Prometheus in this episode is a pretty notable misunderstanding of what Mary was going for with that title.
Now as for the Back to the Future comparison, thinking about it right now I don’t think the implication was meant to be that black people didn’t truly invent rock and roll. This is because, Marty knew about the song Johnny B. Goode BECAUSE Chucky Barry wrote it and sang it (which I just confirmed through Google). And because he was so effective it essentially allowed him to influence Marty which in turn influenced himself. This isn’t quite like the Beethoven situation The Doctor proposed in Before the Flood, because in that hypothetical there was no original Beethoven human (it was only ever the time traveller who was always him). Also, it’s worth keeping in mind that there is no way that Marvin Barry was gonna be able to capture the entire Johnny B. Goode song on that phone call with Marvin in Back to the Future so it’s more likely that they just got an inkling of music and THEN the whole of the Johnny B. Goode song was built around that. And to circle back to Haunting for a bit I think there’s kind of a similar idea with Mary’s Cyberman Frankenstein inspiration, she noticed something that gave her the germ of the idea that would become the ORIGINAL fully fleshed out story of Frankenstein which couldn’t be said to just be a copy of Ashad. She did what good writers are supposed to do, they took inspiration from events in their live and used that to tell an original story. I really don’t think the writers of Back to the Future or this episode were trying to back hand these creators by saying they weren’t smart enough to come up with their own creations but rather were just throwing out some whacky fictional irony, which Doctor Who has done on a multitude of other occasions such as with H.G. Wells in Timelash and other media properties have also done like how Forrest Gump was influencing Elvis and such. These story beats aren’t necessarily here to undermine the creators accomplishments but more so just to have a bit of fun, at the very least I don’t think there were any sinister intentions in these scenarios.
Yeah let's just retcon that ending so that Ashad got defeated in some clever way by the Doctor and then they took his remains away and Percy Shelly was just in town and it was a huge misunderstanding. I didn't like that ending bit in the cave either because it lead into the finale which as we all know is extremely bad. However those are valid points that you bring up, and yet I still have to call this my favourite episode simply by elimination. Also by the fact that right up until that cave scene it was objectively phenomenal and one of the best episodes of Doctor Who period. Every moment was filled with anticipation and wonder, I was so ecstatic when I first saw it and couldn't believe my eyes because for once there's a really good episode in this forsaken era!
It feels like we lower our standards to accommodate the Chibnall era. Finding the mediocre episodes shining, if they can manage a coherent story, or a consistent moral stance. Comparing them to weak stories of other show-runners, to exalt them. The flaws of Chibnall's writing are consistent through his entire tenure, with no lessons learnt. It's a damned shame, and a missed opportunity for the first female doctor.
It's interesting watching (well, listening to) these reviews and trying to pick out anything from the episodes that really stuck in my memory. I keep finding that unless it had Captain Jack or a Dalek in it, the Whittaker/Chibnall era's just a blur for me. I probably enjoyed the episodes as I was watching them, but next to nothing stuck enough to prompt "I'd like to watch that again" the way most of modern Doctor Who did.
I feel like what the chibnall era tries and fails to do is the point made in Thin Ice where Twelve says if he stops to mourn every death, that more people will die and how having that time is a luxury he cant afford. if it is meant to be in that same vein, it is definitely portrayed/misrepresented as a more cruel and apathetic trait of The Doctor rather than being seen as a self-sacrificing attitude to ones own inner peace only someone with a long life like The Doctor can deal with. of course it is still influenced by the writers perspective of a story, not assuming Chibnall writes death in any particular way, but I agree that in previous series where if a death were to occur, it would be made to matter in a substantial way either by varying characters or the narrative. having a character die, especially a side one, for nothing other than the sake of portraying cruelty/wickedness is wholly inexcusable for what understanding we are meant to gain towards the sanctity of life through the Doctor/companions' interaction with the universe.
I didn't have strong feelings about this episode either way but something always felt off about it and I couldn't work out why. And you've just clicked it into place. It was pitched as an episode about the night Mary Shelsley came up with Frankenstein and it ended up being about her frigging husband. It wasn't about her or her historical impact at all.
Thank you so much for this, I've been saying basically the same thing for years and the fact everyone loves this episode and hasn't picked up the fundamental and deeply frustrating thematic issues befuddles me. I can't stand the "WORDS MATTER" speech, it's one of the worst in Doctor Who quite honestly
The episode is still among my favourites of the era, but I can’t really disagree with anything you’ve said
I didn't hate this one, but did find it to be less than the sum of its parts. The criticisms here I agree with, and elicited eye rolls from me while watching the episode initially. Also, like with other Chibnall ideas, even intriguing elements like Ashad and the Cyberium ultimately went nowhere in later stories. What hurt it most for me was comparison with other better stories around these events. Especially Ken Russel's 80s film _Gothic,_ and even 8th Doctor Big Finish audio adventures with Mary Shelley.
As a person who is both egalitarian and realist, I appreciate the attempt to reconcile the Doctor's ideal of having a "flat team structure" with the practical facts of her being a nearly immortal being with knowledge and experience that unavoidably skews the power dynamic. But this was clunky and perfunctory. I would have preferred for it to have been a running theme that played out over time, woven into the narrative rather than culminating in dropping a speech.
16:24 I’m a bit unclear on something. Does it bother you at other times when DW implies it’s adventures inspired real-world writing/ideas? Or is there something specific about this case that gets your goat?
It does bother me in nearly all case but it’s also one of those things has begun to bug me more and more as time as gone on so I’m much more prickly about it that I used to be.
@@CouncilofGeeks
Damn. It’s a bit unavoidable in a time travel story. Nearly all of them do that type of gimmick.
@@BlackCover95 well I should clarify it bugs me far more with creative works being inspired specifically and I’ll give a pass if the overall vibe is comedic enough (like with day Bill & Ted). And a really easy way to avoid it? Stop with the “great people of history” approach to time travel.
I feel like you keep articulating the main issue I have with most episodes this season. Like, I like a lot of them, but I think they tend to fall apart in the back half. Either they're weirdly paced and rushed or they take some wierd and off turns that I don't like or the resolution is really anticlimactic. It's really wierd, because a lot of them start really well and I'm excited, but then just sort of end, without much more impact.
This era never really clicked with me so by this point it felt like a chore watch each episode. I remember this episode coming out and seeing people love it and being like I guess it's not bad. Even on a rewatch I still don't get it.
Fair comment. It doesn't offend me to the same extent, but I do feel that it falls apart at the end. I agree about the callous way Fletchers death is dealt with, and I'm not a fan of the doctors big speech either.
Random thing to comment about but the in terms of back to the future suggesting that 'rock and roll wasn't invented by black people', well not quite since that scene suggests a bootstrap paradox (Who really composed Beethoven's fifth?)
I would argue that it still removes the agency of the black originators of the rock & roll sound by obscuring the issue.
The characters spend a lot of time talking about the choice of Shelley living or dying when they should be talking about how (or even if) they can keep the cyberium away from the Lone Cyberman. If they can’t, then there is no reason to sacrifice Shelley. Also, the Doctor gives a big speech about being at the summit, alone, left to choose when it’s not in her power to choose at that point. Shelley is the one keeping the Lone Cyberman away, it’s his choice.
For me I’m not fond of plot that try to say it’s the encounter with the doctor that causes a writer to write there greatest books like hg wells in the classic era with the Time Machine and war of the worlds and in this case with marry Shelly with Frankenstein it makes the doctor seem like the character is to important
I think you're completely right, but these things don't ruin the episode for me and I still really love it for everything else you mentioned. Also, I hate Village of the Angels and I can't understand why anyone thinks it's good.
Thank you for articulating all the reasons I didn't like this episode that much. I didn't like how they wrote the guests, I hated that they just killed off the people who were 'socially inferior' but treated the death of a wealthy white man as too terrible for words. I also hated the misogyny on full display in taking Mary Shelly's genius and agency away from her. It annoyed me. A lot. There were some great ideas in this and I would have liked to have seen the original screenplay before Chibnall's 'edits' were applied, because I suspect it was a very different story. The schizophrenic nature of the plotting hints at some serious revisions that slashed across the main thrust of the original.
I rewatched it recently before watching power of the Doctor and it’s still my favorite of her Doctor episodes. I’m not saying it’s the best it’s just my favorite. I actually think Power of the Doctor is one of the best episodes
i liked this episode a lot. for a chibnall episode it was really solid and fun. loved the atmosphere, liked the writing of 13 quite a bit. this was one of the first times i felt like i "got" her take on the doctor. that being said though i completely agree with your points of criticism. the ending falls flat on its face. the chibnall era takes such questionable stances sometimes. it's weird how the character just misses the mark, they were so close because, yes, she should definitely be trying to safe his life, but the specific way that speech was worded manages to sap the doctor of her compassion. had that specific scene been written by RTD he would've *nailed* the tone. the ending doesn´t hit those nerves quite as badly for me though. it just goes out on a bit of a bummer.
Chibnall didn't write it. And it shows!
ryan bringing up the argument that shelly is only one person is valid but the doctor should push back, is that she doesnt carry this on with up characters in other eps ie timeless child, and as you said, the two others died they are important to someone,
I agree she should push back, but the way they framed her doing that I have big issues with.
The Haunting of Villa Diodati is the Kerblam of s12. It gets the right vibe for a fantastic doctor who story, but has some serious flaws in the second half when it comes to the messaging. How much these flaws ruin it for you is highly subjective. I still love both episodes, and think they are probably the best of s11 and s12, but I noticed these exact flaws with Haunting the first time I watched it. I’m not gonna pretend that either lacks their flaws, and while I didn’t like the taste those flaws put in my mouth, I still enjoyed the rest of the episode enough that it didn’t bother me as much as odd pacing decisions in It Takes You Away or Can You Hear Me, or the brothers’ acting not landing for me in Demons of the Punjab.
Not to sound like a hipster contrarian (since I feel like some of my criticisms of the previous episodes in this re-watched season may lend credence to the accusation), but I never particularly liked this episode either. I didn't think it was bad, I just found it rather "ho-hum" - I wasn't that interested in anything that was going on, didn't care about any characters (even if my interest was mildly piqued by giving us Mary Shelley & Lord Byron), and was even a little disappointed by The Lone Cyberman as a villain even if I kind of like the design and the character concept.
I also think it was a disappointing follow-through on the "foreshadowing" (hard to call it that when it was so blunt, in retrospect) of Harkness' message about the "Lone Cyberman", given that it's just...literally a warning not to do this thing. Where and when did he get the info and why? Is that covered somewhere? It gets called out in this episode, and then the Doctor ignores it and that's it - it doesn't work as any kind of Easter Egg foreshadowing or a real Mystery Box or anything because there wasn't really any mystery to it and this episode just jumps to explaining what Jack was warning against. It is mildly nice that the decision to give him what he wants isn't just fully resolved in this episode, particularly given how late it happens, as it does allow for some buildup of the consequences to hammer home why it was a bad idea.
I can't say I had as strong a reaction about the "save Percy Bysshe Shelley" argument from the Doctor, but I fully agree with your point here - past Doctors have often talked about (emphatically) the importance of "ordinary" or "normal" people (exact quotes, etc. are failing me at the moment, but I'm quite sure at least Moffat's Doctors did and pretty sure RTD's did, likely others) and to instead hinge the argument on some kind of "Great Man Theory of History" feels like a true betrayal of the character that (as mentioned in this video) at least deserved different framing if it was going to be kept. Maybe the speech would've worked better if the following episodes leaned into what the text suggested - that the Doctor was giving into that Timelord Victorious mentality, and that's what drove away Ryan & Graham. I think it may be somewhat implied, but the next episodes don't lean into it quite enough for that to work, though this could've been a decent start (or proper forefronting) of a character arc.
As you mention, the implication of the events being the inspiration for Frankenstein definitely sours things, especially with the highlight of Percy Shelley's importance - I'm sure the implications you mention are quite unintentional, just stemming from poor foresight/understanding of their implications, but that's a fault of the writers. I know I've soured on "writing and stories are important" narratives/arguments in most things particularly after the infamous speech in the Game of Thrones finale (though I will concede that at least one or two Marvel Comics stories have ended with a similar-ish thesis that I felt worked, partly as it comes across as more praising the writers' predecessors and influences rather than just...stroking their own ego). I don't think this is the first time Doctor Who's had that problem of including an historical figure and kind of implying they're influenced/inspired by the events of the episode (it is a particular issue to deal with when setting an historical episode before/during the figure's key moments) but the combination of the two aspects makes this rather problematic.
Oh, and to address your speculation about Village of the Angels: I still haven't rewatched it (or most any Chibnall era episode), but I'd be willing to bet that I find it "pretty good, very effective at times but hampered by its relation to the serial, not quite as great as I thought". I think (looking back in my mind), the peaks and valleys of Chibnall's era were a lot flatter than they seemed at the time, and the best episodes weren't as good as believed and the worst weren't quite as bad as believed, though the average height above "sea level" might be lower than previously thought.
Huh, a lot more to say than I expected. Thanks for the video!
i agree with you on this (mostly) and village of the angels (completely)
There's a few Chibnall episodes that I enjoyed... but if you asked me the ending, I'd have forgotten. The Power of Three comes to mind.
Where the episode is fantastic, but the ending is very forgettable. In the case of Power of Three because it is nonsensical. Thanks for pointing out that in this case the ending is nonsensical for The Doctor.
I don't think the episode did anything like as big a number on Mary Shelley as the "Boogieman" episode of Quantum Leap did to Stephen King
I’ll have to take your word on that.
I can't wait to immediately angrily hate comment based on the title alone and before actually watching the video
The whole speech is not only gross but _painfully_ out of character for the Doctor.
One of the defining character traits of the Doctor in the past has been not only that they find people fascinating, but that they find _all_ people _equally_ fascinating. This is best exhibited with the Eighth Doctor, I find, especially in the books, but it's always been presented. This story spits on that idea.
I also hate the doctors speech at the end, but it feels so painfully in character for Jodi’s doctor. I really believe that this is the how she feels and it exemplifies why I hate this era so much.
This and that time she gave Dan a sword and let him kill a bunch of sea-devils literally right after fussing at some non-companion for trying to kill a sea devil. Plus the time she yelled at someone for shooting a spider and then immediately lured them all to their suffocating death.
This Doctor prioritizes people who are “important”, is hypocritical, and is just all around a nasty piece of work. I really hate the 13th Doctor.
Funnily enough I do still like the episode, it’s one of the only ones from chibs era I’m willing to watch
What the fuck? Everybody just knows Percy as Mary’s husband, if anything the Doctor should have been saving *HER* more than him if we’re yakking importance here.
I don't think I quite agree with overrated. Whilst I agree with the points you make. To me, overrated implies it isn't as good as people say it is, but your only saying it has some bad stuff, not that it doesn't have any good stuff. I suppose the way I judge quality is just rather weird for most people.
What I find hilarious is - if words matter, why is Chibnall not better at them??
I dunno, same reason most art critics aren't good artists I suppose. Recognizing the value of something doesn't mean you can accomplish the same thing.
i think chibnall was just trying to do waters of mars again. but like… why?
writers talking about themselves gets pretty weird... like, I hate how self-congratulatory it is when a character has an idea and starts exclaiming about how good the idea is (like the 3 Doctors when they realise they can save Gallifrey)... but on the flip side, it's hilarious when there's stuff like Boom Town which has the Doccy saying it means nothing when sometimes u let one go, and then is told 'only a killer would know that.' which is clearly the writer admitting to being a killer lol
Really. Everyday people, statistically, have just as much or more impact on the shape of the world.
Interesting how the person writing the script wrote the Doctor saying the writer was more important than everyone else🤔
Yeah, I'm sure no ego was involved there at all.
I disagree with your claim that the Doctor did not view Fletcher and the maid as important. She specifically says to Mary Shelley "these people were not meant to die today, neither are you, we can't let history be damaged further", she equates the dead people to the famous writers right there and that their deaths will have an impact on history. She then quickly moves on to focus on who she CAN save, which is what Peter Capaldi's Doctor explained to Clara is his process.
I also don't feel like the moment where Ashade possibly inspires Frankenstein devalues Mary Shelley's work and creativity - countless great works of literature are inspired by something the writer saw in their life, and as an irredeemably evil monster Ashade has no real similarities to the victimised Frankenstein's Monster besides the basic appearance of a patchwork person. iirc in real life Mary Shelley was indeed inspired by other influences, notably the experiments that showed passing electricity through the recently deceased causes intense muscle spasms.
I do, however, agree that the Doctor's hyperfixation on Shelley's historical "worth" as a famous writer rubs the wrong way. It feels awful, especially in comparison to the Doctor's usual "every life is important" attitude. I know you hate Father's Day, but I think the Doctor sums up the attitude they SHOULD have perfectly in that episode when Rose points out her father will never be famous: "there's a man alive who wasn't alive before. An ordinary man, that's the most important thing in existence. The whole world's different because he's alive". Though ironically he was arguing for Pete's death there, not his life.
I do enjoy the episode but I am totally with you about the issues ig doesn't get me riled as much as you but i love your passion and you have helped me to see that this message is wrong and love the video as ever
Didn't even watch this episode because I knew it was going to mess up things as they usually do whenever they meet famous writers from the past.
I also disliked what they did with Shakespeare in The Sandman by implying that Morpheus is responsible for the playwright's genius which is far too much like the elitist twits who try to attribute his works to others.
See I don't mind the Sandman thing as much because the overall implication is that as the lord of Dreams, and the Dreaming being the realm of stories, that he (or beings like him) in some way influence literally EVERY writer. But I do get the foundation of your annoyance there.
We like what we like and none of the stuff brought up really bothers me. I really like this episode but that's Dr Who, one person's favourite episode can be on another's hate list. I really like Robot of Sherwood for example and a lot of my friend's really really don't like it! I love River Song my best friend hates her. What can you do?
This is an interesting take, that I hadn't really considered. One of the things that I liked about the Chibnall Era was the way he brought back some of the feel of the classics, but it seems he also brought back some of the bad things too. The callousness of the deaths, writers pontificating about writers and their importance, and history and literature being affected by the adventure are all examples of that. (Less so In RTD and Moffat's tenure but still sometimes there)
Classic Who had ridiculous body counts at times. And the less said about Time Lash, the better
No spoilers, but I can't wait to see what Vera makes of Timelash ;)
She's done a Timelash review on Breakroom of Geeks I think.
@@bythebreach You're right - all of two years back! TBH, I did look for a review of Timelash on "Council", but I should have double-checked Break Room too.
Anyhoo... Now free of spoiler-worry, I can say that at least Mary Shelley was inspired by being in a pretty decent story, as opposed to poor "Herbert" getting his inspiration from the dreck that was Timelash.
I'm a fan of villains. Which is why this episode and Can You Hear Me? work for me personally. Ashad is the most interesting Cyberman of the entire revival. Just as World Enough and Time was the most interesting Nu Who story concerning the Cybermen as a collective. The track record wasn't great until those episodes.
As for the historical influence implications on Mary specifically. This is loosely adapted from The Silver Turk. The Big Finish 8th Doctor Cyberman story. Wherein Mary Shelley is his companion. It's weird because this is kind of like the episode 'Dalek' in comparison to BF's 'Jubilee'. The fam arrive here on the same night the 8th Doctor does when Shelley becomes his companion. I'd recommend it if you haven't listened.
It's weird what they (This Era) did because Moffat made 8's Big Finish Time Canon...
I really hate that the same day that I watched your short about how financially supporting JKRowling supports her transphobia, I got an ad on this video for Hogwarts Legacy. TH-cam disgusts me sometimes.
I definitely wouldn't call it "the best one". Yeah, it's not bad though.
The entire story basically falls apart when the doctor becomes all patronizing about her decision on what is right and completely flips flops on it multiple times. Not to mention the random ghosts that are never explained.
I watched this first time after watching the Shakespeare Code and the writing from over a decade ago on a similar set-up completely outclasses this story that wastes such a interesting villain and setting as a concept.
Also to make the “This man is too important,” argument with Percy Shelley is rather laughable. His political ideal aren’t time tested revolutionary in a way that those he influenced wouldn’t come forward and the writers who praise him have proses that are more influence by Milton than Shelley. If anyone here you want to make that argument for its Byron and Mary Shelley. Hell the only reason Percy Shelly’s works gained attention is because Mary edited them and got them published after his death. In many ways a good fiction writer could easily write around Percy Shelley by having Mary be the one responsible for his future works out of inspiration. Like if you are going to do “this person is too important” at least have it be someone who’s work is timeless.
If you like things not getting explained then you must adore this era of the show
There is a massive difference between unexplained and unexplored. Chibnall is decidedly the latter.
Literally every sci-fi pitfall. _"Atmosphere"_ is just air. Anything of substance this story possesses is ugly.
Genuinely great side cast, they add a lot and do make it a fun time. I hate it objectively, like it subjectively.
I hate the "Great Man Of History".
From here on out, IMHO, keeps going downhill
words do matter. but 'inspiration' as importance or "currency' is awful. Ideas matter, hope matters innovation matters, but ever in a vacuum. We Never know who will be important, and history gets plenty wrong
Except Chibnall clearly express sympathy with TERFS and legitimate disgusting anger with trans bodies in The Power of The Doctor and Whittaker herself has expressed none too subtle TERF, in an episode written by a trans woman (the final episode of the Doctor Who fictional podcast Doctor Who: Redacted). And I'm not giving myself any overdue relevance here, but I've been a defender of the era.
I love this story. Top tier. So let's start with your rather poor arguments, she argues that Percy shelly is important to the future. Because he is. And if you are gonna call this story out on that then all of doctor who needs to be called out also.
It doesn't matter that 2 people already died or that more may die soon after because she cannot knowingly let someone as important as shelly die and as 12 so brilliantly puts it , (I'm paraphrasing)they are already dead if we don't want to be like them we need to move on.
Writing is important, not quite sure why you have such an issue with it , I heard you but it doesn't make sense to me. The story and writer are important. Implying Frankenstein is written as a result of the Cybermen makes sense and doesn't ruin her importance as you said yourself the story is important right? But regardless of that it's a nice nod on history being influenced by the doctor in lots of random ways like the great fire of London or Amy's sunflowers of van Gogh. It's only removing her importance if you remove the importance. Mary shellys words poured out beautifully, essentially giving it a feel of being done in one night which in reality took several.
Ashaad is badass and it's a crying shame the master takes over as the threat (despite me loving Sasha master) because it deserved an ashaad finale. 13 is fantastic in this and so are the supporting cast.
Incidentally I have no issue with a high body count, why not? Life isnt fair and they need to give the villains danger which is easiest to do with a body count.
I adore haunting of villa diodate and yes I also love village of the angels.
I really hope she comes back to write for Russel.
honestly it's refreshing to hear criticism of this overly praised episode. It's full of problems
Your opinion is different from mine, therefore you’re wrong