In this class, we have read a couple dozen shorts stories and a few novels that can all be classified as science fiction. (Actually, I also had to listen to The Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate as an audio file, because I'm bad at internet searches, but that is neither here nor there.) However, had we read a short story about the Doctor, it wouldn't have felt the same as the show. That isn't to say that literature is great and television sucks or vice versa, but part of the story is in how it is told, in my opinion.
For example, I've always been one of those people that lightly skims any battle or action sequences in text form. I feel like no matter how well you describe your landscape, unless I'm given a rough sketch, we probably aren't picturing the same thing and I'll get confused, so as long as I understand who ends up killing/maiming/shit-wrecking who, then I'm content to miss out on those parts in exchange for the meaningful self-reflection and monologues. Similarly, since monologues and self-reflection often come across as awkward and unrealistic in visual media, we watch for the graphics and for the more physical, visual, and spatial aspects of story-telling.
How did everyone feel about the shift from the texts to the television this week? I think that both of these episodes were similar in that the focus was in some degree separated from the Doctor. I feel like for both of them, my knowledge about who the Doctor really is and what he was really doing was instrumental in how I perceived what was happening on-screen, so I'm interested to see how a non-Whovian felt about it.
I enjoyed the action scenes but I think that the low budget was sort of obvious in some cases. You can definitely tell a difference between the old episodes with Tennant and Eccleston and the new ones with Matt Smith. In "Blink" we never actually saw the angels move and they obviously used the same statue poses for multiple scenes and shots. Compare this to the more recent weeping angels episode and it just felt like the effects were lacking. That being said, I think the low budget sort of adds to the charm of the older Doctor Who episodes. They have to rely more on story telling and plot and they're just flat out entertaining.
ReplyDeleteAlthough that one shot with the Doctor riding the horse in slow motion through a mirror was pretty cheesy.
I'm honestly more at home dealing with visual media; it offers a more 'external' view of events and places more emphasis on the viewer to pay attention to characters in absence of internal monologues or blatant exposition. I also think there is a greater opportunity to use silent subtlety.
ReplyDeleteAs for the specific episodes and my knowledge of the Dr., I hadn't watched any Dr. Who before but knew enough from listening to other people talk about the show to have some idea about what to expect. Stylistically I do like the idea of having the protagonist and the 'main character' not be the same person.
I really enjoyed the shift to television this week. To be honest, in the beginning of "The Girl in the Fireplace" I had no idea what was going on. This was clearly my fault for assuming that I could jump into a series and understand everything. It did seem really low budget, but I think part of that is because society has become so used to everything being HD and having million dollar budgets. I did enjoy watching something different than what I'm used to however, and I plan on watching a few more of the episodes when I get done with midterms.
ReplyDelete