Dr. Who (Reboot, 2005-)/Series 1/Television

Dr. Who, Series 1: Most Disturbing Premise (pt. 1)

Posted on by nwilson

[Spoilers] Once you really start getting into the premises and logical extensions of the episodes (i.e. doing criticism), sometimes things break down. Premises can be disturbing because, if true, they’re scary, or they can be disturbing because they don’t make sense. I’ve ranked them in another post, but here’s what I find scary, odd and/or incomprehensible, broken down by episode:

Episode 1, “Rose”: There’s a few things we could talk about here, including that relatively innocuous structures like the London Eye could be secret transmitters for nefarious parties. Cue the Tinfoil Hat patrol.

Then there’s this elderly professional–and I’m talking about the Doctor here–who goes in for 20-year old shop girls. There’s a lot of #MeToo and Class critiques available here. True, “age is just a number,” and the Doctor’s number is somewhere around 900. The TARDIS is dangled as a panel van containing all the candy in the universe. It’s more than a little creepy, though ultimately platonic.

Episode 2, “The End of the World”: The Earth was in danger of being engulfed by the Sun long before the year five billion, but technology was holding the forces in check–until we stopped paying the bills–then it’s bye-bye Earth. Invite all the wealthy to come watch its demise. So for-profit economies are alive and well in the Universe of the future. As long as you can pay the bills, you can stave off natural disasters, but if you can’t pay, none of your Communist, “All life matters” in this galaxy. In the words of Paul Cicero of Goodfellas, “F— you, pay me.”

Then there’s the idea that humans bred themselves into completely different species (plural)–so, many species are sexually compatible? That’s weird.

Finally, there’s Lady Cassandra O’Brien. Even if we presume her organs are in a jar and connected by tubes, how can a piece of skin, with no muscles, bones, tendons or ligaments move her mouth? She doesn’t even have lungs to move air–how can she speak? The pinnacle of human evolution [in her own mind], she is wildly susceptible to dry skin. It’s a critique of female beauty standards, the desire for women who are incredibly thin–Cassandra’s a two-dimensional sheet of skin. To paraphrase Nigel Tifnul from Spinal Tap, “How much more thin could she be? And the answer is none. None more thin.”

Episode 3, “The Unquiet Dead”: Ok, the dead can be reanimated. That’s revolutionary enough. The argument, “Give us your dead, you aren’t using them!” is frightening. And yet the same force that can animate the dead is soluble in (and drawn to) natural gas. The Gelth can consciously come through the rift, enter the gas lines and then leave them to possess a body, but when gas is in the air, they suddenly must leave the bodies and inhabit the gas? How does that work?

Episodes 4 & 5, “Aliens of London”/”World War Three”: The Slitheen are trying to irradiate and sell off chunks of the planet as spaceship fuel for profit, so we again see Capitalism run amok. The profit of a tech-savvy few outweigh the needs of the indigenous. Here, the Doctor steps in to stop them, so it would appear to be a thwarting of Colonialist and Laissez Faire Capitalism. However, the Doctor HAS to defeat them, which places it in the category of Might Makes Right, which is itself an extension of Capitalism.

Episode 6, “Dalek”: Ok, Aliens exist, so there have to be rich, American a$$holes who collect alien artifacts. Granted. And yes, a Dalek escaped destruction in the Time War; that’s not unusual for a time-traveling species, as we’ll soon come to find out. After all, it would be pretty boring if the Doctor had no nemeses (though that is also an extension of Capitalist thinking: “Without a contest, what’s the point?”).

Rose has to free the Dalek, and the evil American Capitalist who would willingly torture a creature for amusement–and the minor potential for profit–must be punished/killed. Also, in a bit of dramatic irony, Rose pities the Dalek and saves it by imbuing it with her DNA, which both gives it the capacity for sympathy that saves her life, and is the source of its own self-revulsion that causes it to self-destruct. Rose gets to be the universally Good person. the Doctor, on the other hand, is spiteful, ranting at the Dalek and refusing to help. No forgiving. No forgetting. And no pity. This ninth incarnation of the Doctor is DARK! So there’s the final premise of the episode: That the capacity for good is hardwired into our DNA.

Episode 7, “The Long Game”: This one’s close to my heart, but also a disturbing trend since at least 2015. “Ze who controls the media, controls the world.” That’s the whole of the premise of this episode. The Jagrafess controls Satellite 5, which controls all the world’s news feeds, and it transmits messages to instill fear in the population, keeping them in a closed society and stunting our potential for growth. It’s everybody’s worst perception of the media. Fox News as the only station. The Liberal Media drumming up a race war or pandemic threat to keep everyone living in fear. And there’s no trustworthy objective voice to listen to [because that’s what happens when you throw out all the scientists and journalists as biased because you don’t like what they’re telling you: you throw out the baby with the bath water]. The Doctor kills the Jagrafess, but doesn’t actually fix the problem that people get their news from one facility, which allows for a follow up in Episode 12.

Episode 8, “Father’s Day”: We had to get a Time Travel Paradox eventually: Rose Tyler grew up without a dad. So what happens if she goes back in time and saves her dad’s life? Reapers. That’s what happens. Reapers feed off cracks in space-time, and apparently can cross over from the Time Vortex, but once in our world are blocked by physical barriers, and moreso by older buildings. That’s weird in and of itself. Why does the date of construction matter? Shouldn’t a building of old stone be just as effective a barrier, whether it was constructed a century or a year ago? And why can’t they just “cross over” inside the building? But I digress.

What draws the Reapers out to feed is a Blinovitch Limitation Effect, or “crossing your own time line.” Basically, the Doctor (actually #10, David Tennant) describes it later as Back to the Future, if you change your past, your present will be different as well, and you can write yourself right out of existence. Additionally, the timeline can absorb a lot of minor changes, but there are certain “fixed points” that must remain unchanged or the whole of space-time unravels. Apparently, the death of Peter Tyler is one.

This is as opposed to the MCU‘s version of time travel, in which a change to the past creates new timelines, but we can’t travel to the future within those timelines, only back into our own timeline. This is why Cap doesn’t remember fighting himself–he still didn’t. On a side note, in the book, Version Control by Dexter Palmer, we first off have to realize that to travel in time, we also have to travel in space, as the universe is constantly moving; so we’d need a device to measure how much the earth has moved and in which directions, so that we can travel back there, and we can only travel backward or forward (safely) since the invention of that device; second, that we can create a new timeline, and then jump forward into that timeline, but when we enter that timeline we have no memory of our previous timeline–for us, everything is as it always was.

So, those versions of time travel aside, we need the Doctor to parse out which moments need to remain fixed and which can be massaged, without bringing on the Reapers–which, by the way, the Doctor can do nothing about, save ensuring that events unfold as they need to.

Episodes 9 & 10, “The Empty Child”/”The Doctor Dances”: We once again see the splash damage of Laissez Faire Capitalism, as “Time Agent”/con man Captain Jack Harkness brings a “dangerous” cylinder through the Time Vortex and into our world, then attempts to sell it to other “Time Agents” (just how many time travelers are there, anyway?), presumably as a potential weapon, before–“Whoops–a German bomb fell on it. Too bad you already paid,” and you can’t cross your timeline to catch him in the act [Can you? It’s a Time Lord rule, not a law of physics]. “So sad for you.” Once again, the message is that the Capitalists are doing illegal things and harming people, even if unintentionally. But Captain Jack is sorry, (and omnisexual) so he gets invited on the TARDIS.

Episode 11, “Boom Town”: Ok, the Slitheen are back, running Cardiff and trying to destroy the earth by using a nuclear power plant to open the rift. So here we see new dangers for nuclear power–“It can open a rift in space-time and destroy the planet? F@#$ that!”

Episode 12, “Bad Wolf”: We’re back on Satellite 5, but instead of Fake News, now we’re treated to Reality TV Death Matches. It’s an inevitable evolution [is it though?]: We love to hate the characters and vote them off, why not go the extra step and watch them disintegrated? Moreover, you don’t volunteer, you are selected by lottery. All of this is just window-dressing to keep the Earth busy while the Daleks repopulate. As Neil Postman postulated, we are Amusing Ourselves to Death, in both the killing of the contestants and the rising Dalek threat.

Episode 13,”The Parting of the Ways: Further, in the second installment, the Daleks admit to using the cells of human beings to create new Daleks (they weren’t disintegrated, but transported, only to be, well, dis-integrated?). True, unlike Episode 6, where the Dalek is altered/tainted by Rose’s DNA, these Daleks are selecting humans for membership on a cell-by-cell basis [apparently based on our capacity for hate, per episode 6]. Nevertheless, the trend of mixing Dalek with humans continues through the rest of the reboot.

The “Bad Wolf” thing has been popping up time and time again, and now we have the answer: By looking into the heart of the TARDIS, Rose becomes the Bad Wolf, and scatters clues throughout the timeline, so in essence, she crosses her own timeline, creating the means of her own creation (although it’s pretty subtle, pretty “thin”).

So what’s your vote for the most disturbing premise? Did I miss anything? Let me know in the comments, and click here for my picks in Part 2!

Gaming/Tabletop/Tabletop Role Playing Games

Races & Racism in Dungeons & Dragons (pt. 1)

Posted on by nwilson

Role Playing Games (RPGs) have long been an escape for society’s misfits, at least since Gary Gygax and Tactical Studies Rules (TSR) released Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) in 1974. Based on an older tradition of role play (off-shoots of theater), they are a way to hang out with friends and imagine new worlds where we can be something other than what we currently are. You can play a different species (or race, or ethnicity), a different sex or gender, you can have a different appearance, different attributes and abilities and even different “alignments.”

Fans of HBO’s West World will know that you can choose a white hat (i.e. to be a good guy), or a black hat (playing the villain). So too, in the 1974 release of D&D you could be Lawful (law-abiding and honorable), Chaotic (rebellious and individualistic), or Neutral (seeking a balance). These categories were based on the works of Michael Moorcock (famous for Elric of Melnibone) and Poul Anderson (famous for Three Hearts and Three Lions). Later, in the 1977 release, TSR included the axis of Good (altruistic, with respect for life), Neutral and Evil (selfish, with no respect for life) to the mix. You could play as Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Neutral, etc., but you had to declare up-front. It was supposed to be fun. However, this world wasn’t without problems.

Some players were upset by the 1980’s campaign, “The Curse of Strahd,” which used stereotypes of Romani peoples as a basis for their Vistani, a group of nomadic travelers. Yes, works of fiction are reductive by necessity. How could you adequately represent an entire culture in a module that has several dozen other “working parts?” That brings us to Kenneth Burke’s idea that:

Kenneth Burke

Even if any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must function as a deflection of reality. (45)

In short, all attempts to represent something through the use of symbols are reductive in nature, and lead us to believe certain things, which may or may not be true. Though such reductionism may have been “par for the course,” Wizards of the Coast (WotC, the creators of Magic: The Gathering)–who bought TSR in 1997–nevertheless worked with a Romani consultant to present the Vistani in a less reductive light.

Note the “diversity” here.

Further, some creatures, monsters and races were given certain alignments, and choosing one of these races for your Player Character (PC) grants you certain attribute bonuses and abilities unavailable to other races. This is again the nature of gaming: There has to be a structure of rules to allow players to individualize their characters. To their credit, D&D and other role-playing games have always emphasized the need for diverse parties to prevail against a wide range of problems and threats. However, is the structure of a threat enough to ensure diverse outcomes? And are the rules allowing for creativity and individual experiences or causing more problems?

If we think there’s such a thing as an inherently evil race, then might we suspect that some groups or people in our own world are inherently, irreparably evil?

Critics have always noticed the problems with the idea of an entire race or species–that isn’t a devil or daemon–that are inherently evil (or entirely anything, for that matter), but the problem wasn’t the most pressing. If you don’t like the rules, change them or don’t play.

Nevertheless, critics of popular culture have also long acknowledged, with Kenneth Burke, that “Literature”–and in this category we should include all of popular culture–“is Equipment for Living.” That’s why I study stand up comedy. Thus we learn life lessons from stories we read and watch, and perhaps even moreso from stories in which we participate.

A lot of people also don’t tend to question the world around them: It is what it is. These people may take that same mindless approach to games, never questioning the rules or systems of the game–it wouldn’t occur to them to change the rules. And these rules represent a further selection and deflection of real-world rules.

This is how I got into D&D, at about 9 years old, in fourth or fifth grade. My friends and I weren’t cool like the Stranger Things kids, creating our own campaigns and worlds. We bought and played modules–preset adventures and campaigns. We read through accepted the world on-face, and faithfully tried to represent our characters and complete quests.

If we haven’t questioned either set of rules (in-game or real life), we certainly never question whether or not the rules of the game apply IRL. But our mindless approach doesn’t mean our acceptance of those in-game rules doesn’t bleed over. If we think there’s such a thing as an inherently evil race, then might we suspect that some groups or people in our own world are inherently, irreparably evil?

So, though it may not have been the most pressing issue, in response to the recent events concerning race, WotC decided to make some changes. The company released a statement and a six-point plan for improving the game, including this tidbit:

Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. Despite our conscious efforts to the contrary, we have allowed some of those old descriptions to reappear in the game. We recognize that to live our values, we have to do an even better job in handling these issues. If we make mistakes, our priority is to make things right.

The plan includes [Note: This is the order in which they appear. I’ve numbered them for easier reference; WotC doesn’t give them a numeric ranking]:

  1. More diverse depictions of the so-called, “evil” races (drow and orcs) in upcoming titles.
  2. Implementing a review process for books and modules up for reprint.
  3. The ability to customize characters, even with regard to “racial bonuses,” to emphasize the individuality, even among members of the same “race.”
  4. Continuing to revise “The Curse of Strahd” and related projects.
  5. Employing experts and sensitivity readers in all the revisions of past books and modules.
  6. Recruiting a more diverse staff.

Parts 1, 2, 4 and 5 seem all of a piece: revisions to prevent reducing races and ethnic groups in the literature down to set attributes, especially not problematic and oversimplified ones. And part 6 they should have been doing all along.

However part 3 will fundamentally change how the game is played. If your character’s attributes aren’t necessarily tied to the race you’ve chosen, then we should see much more diversity in the characters represented. It remains to be seen how these rules will shake out, but I’m happy at least that WotC aren’t just parroting #BlackLivesMatter, nor are they just throwing money at the issue. They’re trying to be better when doing what they do. That makes them role models.

Comments? Thoughts? Something I missed?

Cases and Current Events/Comics in the News/Stand Up Comedy

8:46 (pt. 1)

Posted on by nwilson

[From Nathan: All of these posts are pretty unrefined, I hope you understand.]

The Show

Recently, YouTube released 8:46, a 27-minute clip from Dave Chappelle & Friends: A Talk With Punchlines, an event held in Yellow Springs, Ohio on June 6. A title card explains that it was Chappelle’s first performance in nearly three months (87 days; Ryzik, Willen, Yap).

Chappelle–like the rest of us–had to contend with the COVID-19 pandemic, which closed comedy clubs, and many critics note the outdoor venue and “socially distanced” audience (Jenkins, Nemetz, Obaro, Respers France, Willen, Yap). Lisa Respers France of CNN and Tomi Obaro of Buzzfeednews are the only critics, however, who quote Chappelle, who himself acknowledges that this is “weird and less than ideal circumstances to do a show.”

Confused Context

While all the critics note that the incident involving George Floyd is the occasion for Chappelle’s monologue, they seem a bit split on what happened, exactly. Nick Gillespie of Reason.com is the most blunt, noting the special deals with “the police killing of George Floyd.” Audrey Yap of Variety notes that 8:46 was the length of time “Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin held his knee against Floyd’s neck, ultimately leading to his death.” While “holding one’s knee against someone’s neck” sounds pretty mild, Yap is the only one other than Gillespie to infer a causal relationship of Chauvin’s behavior and Floyd’s death.

J. Edward Moreno of The Hill, similarly notes that 8:46 is the amount of time “former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin held his knee on Floyd’s neck,” no mention of the death. Claudia Willen of The Insider also refers to Chauvin as “former officer,” but that he merely “knelt on George Floyd’s neck before he died.” To be fair, she later notes that Floyd’s death was “at the hands of Minneapolis police officers.” Lisa Respers France also mentions that Chauvin is a “former officer” but is a bit more precise in that Chauvin “was filmed kneeling on Floyd’s neck before he died.” Caitlyn O’Kane of CBS News doesn’t refer to Chauvin at all, nor Floyd’s death, instead noting–in passive voice–that Floyd “was pinned to the ground by a Minneapolis police officer.” She later calls his death a “tragedy.” Craig Jenkins of Vulture.com skips the issue of Chauvin entirely, noting that the special “deals with the fallout from the death of George Floyd.” True, Chauvin is innocent until proven guilty, but this parsing of language might reveal some implicit bias.

The Content: Overview

Floyd isn’t the only thing discussed in the special. Among the content critics talk about are race (O’Kane, Willen), the protests (Adams, Gillespie, Jenkins, Willen), the media response (Gillespie, Moreno, Nemetz, espers France, Ryzik, Willen, Yap)–specifically Laura Ingraham (Nemetz, Willen, Yap), Candace Owens (Nemetz, Respers France, Willen, Yap), and Don Lemmon (Gillespie, Moreno, Nemetz)–the death of Kobe Bryant and Chappelle’s resultant inability to accept a Grammy (O’Kane, Ryzik, Yap), his family members (Ryzik), Ja Rule (Yap), Philando Castille (O’Kane), Trayvon Martin (O’Kane, Willen), Eric Garner (Willen), Michael Brown (Adams) and a run-in Chappelle had with an Ohio police officer who went on to kill a young black man, John Crawford III (Adams, Ryzik).

The Verdict: Commentary, but not humor

Though Chappelle “covers a wide range of topics” (Ryzik), he “dives deep into topics of police brutality and Floyd’s death” and he “does not hold back” in “a set rife with his signature searing social commentary” (Yap). Repers France similarly notes that Chappelle “searingly addresses” these topics. Claudia Willen agrees that Chappelle is doing “social commentary,” (rather than humor) as Chappelle’s “regular jokes were far and few between,” and “humor is secondary in this set” (Willen). Craig Jenkins and Melena Ryzik also note it’s not really stand up:

The outrage is pure and unfiltered, more like a stressed-out bar hang or a video essay using historical parallels to illustrate what is acutely agonizing about 2020 than a gig meant to draw laughs. (Jenkins)

Chappelle’s performance isn’t much of a comedy set, because, as he notes, there aren’t really any jokes. Instead, it’s a raw accounting of police brutality, punctuated with images of black men who died at the hands of officers, and deftly interweaving his own personal history. (Ryzik)

Instead, what Chappelle is doing is serious (not humorous). Nemetz names it as such, stating:

In the new special,… Chappelle gets serious and tackles the systemic racism that contributed to Floyd’s untimely death and the worldwide protests that followed. (Nemetz)

A couple of critics even mentioned that Chappelle himself didn’t think the set was funny (and therefore that he’s not doing humor/stand up):

“This isn’t funny at all,” he says at one point, overwhelmed by the heaviness of his subject matter. (Jenkins)

“This is really not funny at all,” Dave Chappelle admits midway through. (Adams)

So we can again infer a divide I’ve talked about before–a divide between serious treatment and humorous. Chappelle can “get serious” or be “seriously funny,” but not both. We know this is a false dichotomy, but the way I see it described over and over in critiques of all comics seems to enforce a division.

Too “Raw”

Perhaps a justification for the set not being funny, Chappelle’s act is described above as “pure and unfiltered [outrage]” (Jenkins), a “raw accounting of police brutality” (Ryzik). Others also use the R-word:

He gets raw about everything from Floyd’s death to the media in a set that is heavier on observations than jokes. (Respers France)

[The show] was billed as “a talk with punchlines,” and while he’s a master of twisting painful truths until he can find the joke in them, the emotions that the killing of George Floyd and the protests that followed have brought to the surface are too raw to process, let alone transmute into something resembling humor. (Adams)

Others pointed out that the 27-minute video came with a disclaimer:

From Dave: Normally I wouldn’t show you something so unrefined, I hope you understand (Adams, OBaro, O’Kane, Yap)

Others pointed to Chappelle not being “off-book” as a sign that the set wasn’t quite honed yet:

He sits on a stool and lets out a heavy, bone-deep sigh, then consults his black book of jokes — another indication that this show is unpolished, less practiced. (Obaro)

Dressed in black, he refers regularly to a notebook and smokes a cigarette onstage. (Ryzik)

He keeps fiddling with the strap on his Moleskine notebook, as if he knows that once he opens it, he won’t be able to shut it again.* (Adams)

It’s not surprising the material was “unrefined”: COVID-19 closed all the clubs, and gigs and open mics are where comics hone their material. What we essentially got in this set, was Chappelle’s first (official) draft. Tomi Obaro of Buzzfeed news points out that Chappelle says in the set:

But the only way to figure out if this shit will actually work is to do the goddamn show

Yes, he’s talking about a show with COVID-19 restrictions, but he’s also talking about the material itself. So the act is definitely unrefined, but the words “raw,” “pure and unfiltered” connote a whole other world of values: authentically held positions on issues, as opposed to strategic positioning and role playing a humorous character; informational statements, lacking joking form; authentic representations of emotions, rather than feigned, etc. The “filters” of humor are many.

But Powerful

As with most stand up comedy that makes the news for not being funny, Chappelle’s set is lauded by some:

[Chappelle’s video] about the police killing of George Floyd and subsequent protests [is] immensely powerful (Gillespie).

It’s Chappelle’s most poignant material in ages (Jenkins).

[The set is] incendiary and brilliant — part sermon, part history lesson, part eulogy. (Obaro)

Willen goes into a more detailed critique:

[Chappelle’s set] evolves into a monologue that weaves individuals like Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner into a larger story of police brutality and deeply rooted racism in the US…. 8:46 provides a harrowing look at the way history has repeated itself, often at the expense of Black lives (Willen).

Chappelle himself points out he’s been doing this type of work in pointing out racism and social injustices through his comedy since the beginning. So, on the one hand, it’s great to see his new special get critical acclaim–even if it fails as humor. On the other hand, we as critics should be echoing his statement that he’s been here the whole time, and magnifying his voice not only from this special, but from his previous works, as they apply. I’ll work on getting something up here.

Traditional critics give preference to the works of bona fide speakers who state their authentic feelings to an audience that is prepared to act. Stand up comedy usually violates most of these conditions. So of course this statement by Chappelle would get positive critiques from those who agree. I want to compare these to the critiques of the set after Chappelle has reworked it–presuming he will.

In part two, I’ll look at some of the most quoted material from this set–and try to find some intersections to his previous work.

References:

Adams, Sam (6/12/2020). “In Dave Chappelle’s Surprise New Special, He’s Done Making Jokes.” www.slate.com

Gillespie, Nick (6/12/2020). “Dave Chappelle’s ‘8:46’ Expresses Righteous Rage Over George Floyd’s Murder.” www.reason.com

Jenkins, Craig (6/12/2020). “Dave Chappelle’s 8:46 Is Powerful But Not Quite Perfect.” Vulture.com

Moreno, J. Edward (6/12/2020). “Dave Chappelle addresses George Floyd’s death, rips Don Lemon in surprise Netflix special.” www.thehill.com

Nemetz, Dave (6/12/2020). “Don Lemon Reacts to Dave Chappelle Criticism in New Netflix Stand-Up Special: ‘I Actually Agree With Him.'” www.tvline.com

O’Kane, Caitlyn. “Dave Chappelle addresses George Floyd’s death and racial injustice in surprise special, “8:46.”” www.cbsnew.com

Respers France, Lisa (6/12/2020). “Dave Chappelle drops hard-hitting ‘8:46’ special.” www.cnn.com

Ryzik, Melena (6/12/2020). “Dave Chappelle’s Netflix Special: Three Key References to Know.” www.nytimes.com

Willen, Claudia (6/12/2020). “Dave Chapelle cuts the jokes to take an incisive look at racism in America in his surprise Netflix special ‘8:46.'” www.insider.com

Yap, Audrey Cleo (6/12/2020). “Dave Chappelle Speaks Out on George Floyd’s Death, Blasts Candace Owens in Searing Netflix Special.” www.variety.com

Ramblings

Cleaning House

Posted on by nwilson

*Whew!* Doing some house cleaning here on the website. I had cause to look closely at the “Tags,” and found several redundancies and misspellings, even of comic’s names! Sorry to Aziz Ansari, Keegan-Michael Key, Hasan Minhaj, Iliza Shlesinger, and writer Ann Nguyen.

That lead me to re-examine “Categories.” Whereas I previously had only put discussions of stand up in sub-categories, those have now become sub-sub-categories. So now I’ve placed each article in at least one category, sub-category, and sub-sub-category, for easier searching.

Hopefully, that will help people with site navigation, going forward. Cheers!

Dr. Who (Reboot, 2005-)/Series 1/Television

Dr. Who, Series 1: Best Quotes/Exchanges (pt. 1)

Posted on by nwilson

[Spoilers!] I LOVE a good quote, and there are some truly great lines in this show. So here are my top three contenders from each episode (courtesy of www.planetclaire.tv), with some commentary. I’ve followed this with a ranked list, but here are the contenders:

Episode 1, “Rose” (Russell T. Davies):

Rose and the Doctor have a number of great exchanges, and this is one of the first. Absurd questions, defensive answers, and unexpected parallels. Classic.

The Doctor: What are you doing here?
Rose: I live here.
The Doctor: Well what’d you do that for?
Rose: Because I do. I’m only home because someone blew up my job.
The Doctor: Must have got the wrong signal. You’re not plastic are you? [knocks on her forehead]. Nope, bone in.

Sometimes the writers wax a bit poetic, and this is Russell T. Davies at his best.

Rose: Really though, Doctor. Tell me. Who are you?
The Doctor: Do you know like we were saying? About the Earth revolving? It’s like when you’re a kid. The first time they tell you that the world’s turning and you just can’t quite believe it because everything looks like it’s standing still. I can feel it. [he grabs her hand] The turn of the Earth. The ground beneath our feet is spinning at a thousand miles an hour. And the entire planet is hurtling around the sun at sixty-seven thousand miles an hour and I can feel it. We’re falling through space, you and me. Clinging to the skin of this tiny little world and if we let go… [he drops her hand]. That’s who I am. Now forget me, Rose Tyler. Go home.

I love a good quip that makes you go, “…Well that’s true….”

Rose: If you are an alien how come you sound like you’re from the North?
The Doctor: Lots of planets have a North.

Episode 2, “The End of the World” (Russell T. Davies):

Again, Russell T. Davies, waxing expansive about the hopes and dreams of the human race.

The Doctor: You lot. You spend all your time thinking about dying. Like you’re going to get killed by eggs or beef or global warming or asteroids. But you never take the time to imagine the impossible. That maybe you survive. This is the year 5.5 slash Apple slash 26. Five billion years in your future. And this is the day— hold on. This is the day the sun expands. Welcome to the end of the world.

As I’ve already discussed, Jabe, one of the Trees of Cheem is a great character, and ze (do anthropomorphic trees have sexes?) and the Doctor have good chemistry, all starting in this exchange.

Jabe: The gift of peace. I bring you a cutting of my grandfather.
The Doctor: Thank you. Yes, gifts. I give you, in return, air from my lungs. [Blows on her].
Jabe: How… intimate.
The Doctor: There’s more where that came from.
Jabe: I bet there is.

The second Doctor/Rose exchange that makes the list. Again, odd parallels, digs on language choice, quick comebacks. Awesome.

Rose: Alright. As my mate Shareen says, “Don’t argue with the designated driver.” [Pulling out her cell]. Can’t exactly call for a taxi.
There’s no signal. We’re out of range. Just a bit.
The Doctor: Tell you what, with a little bit of jiggery-pokery—
Rose: Is that a technical term, “jiggery-pokery”?
The Doctor: Yeah. I came first in jiggery-pokery. What about you?
Rose: No. I failed hullabaloo.

Episode 3, “The Unquiet Dead” (Mark Gatiss):

So much in here. Creative types know that even their biggest fans are going to have a few critiques.

The Doctor: You’re a genius!
Coachman: You want me to get rid of him, sir?
Dickens: Ah, no. I think he can stay.
The Doctor: Honestly, Charles—can I call you Charles?—I’m such a big fan.
Dickens: What? A big what?
The Doctor: Fan. Number one fan, that’s me.
Dickens: How exactly are you a fan? In what way do you resemble a means of keeping oneself cool?
The Doctor: No, it means “fanatic”, “devoted to”. Mind you, I’ve gotta say, that American bit in Martin Chuzzlewit, what’s that about? Was that just padding or what? I mean it’s rubbish, that bit.
Dickens: I thought you said you were my fan.
The Doctor: Oh well, if you can’t take criticism.

The comparison of animated corpses as “recycling,” is interesting, if macabre.

Dickens: Incredible. Ghosts that are not ghosts, but beings from another world who can only exist in our realm by inhabiting cadavers.
The Doctor: Good system. Might work.
Rose: You can’t let them run around inside dead people.
The Doctor: Why not? It’s like recycling.
Rose: Seriously though, you can’t.
The Doctor: Seriously though, I can.

The sentiment here gets me. It precedes In Bruges (2008) by three years, yet it reminds me very much of the sentiment in that film–about to die in a place you never wanted to be–and makes me smile.

Rose: But I can’t die. Tell me I can’t. I haven’t even been born yet. It’s impossible for me to die. Isn’t it?
The Doctor: I’m sorry.
Rose: It’s 1869. How can I die now?
The Doctor: Time isn’t a straight line. It can twist into any shape. You could be born in the 20th century and die in the 19th and it’s all my fault. I brought you here.
Rose: It’s not your fault. I wanted to come.
The Doctor: What about me? I saw the fall of Troy. World War V. I pushed boxes at the Boston Tea Party. Now I’m going to die in a dungeon. In Cardiff.

Episode 4 & 5, “Aliens of London”/”World War Three” (Russell T. Davies): (Couldn’t find as many in these)

As I’ll point out, the creepiness of the 900/20 age gap is something that’s glossed over throughout the series.

Rose: When you say nine hundred years.
The Doctor: That’s my age.
Rose: You’re nine hundred years old?
The Doctor: Yeah.
Rose: My mom was right. That’s one hell of an age gap.

Ahh, wordplay…

Rose: My mother’s cooking.
The Doctor: Good. Put her on a slow heat and let her simmer.

A good dig at humanity, and some redemption for Mickey.

Mickey: I just went down ‘the shop, and I was thinking, you know, like the whole world’s changed. Aliens and spaceships, all in public. And here it is (holds up newspaper reading Alien Hoax). How can they do that? They saw it.
The Doctor: They’re just not ready. You’re happy to believe in something that’s invisible, but if it’s staring you in the face—”Nope! Can’t see it.” There’s a scientific explanation for that. You’re thick.
Mickey: We’re just idiots.
The Doctor: Well… not all of you.
Mickey: Yeah?

Episode 6, “Dalek” (Robert Shearman):

Every once and a while, an enemy has the Doctor’s number. In this episode, the Doctor reveals his maniacal hatred of the Daleks–he goes a bit overboard. Here, the Doctor brags on genocide, and gets called out.

The Doctor: What the hell are you here for?
Dalek: I am waiting for orders.
The Doctor: What does that mean?
Dalek: I am a soldier. I was bred to receive orders.
The Doctor: Well you’re never gonna get them. Not ever.
Dalek: I demand orders!
The Doctor: They’re never gonna come! Your race is dead. You all burned—all of you. Ten million ships on fire. The entire Dalek race, wiped out in one second.
Dalek: You lie!
The Doctor: I watched it happen. I made it happen.
Dalek: You destroyed us?
The Doctor: I had no choice.
Dalek: And what of the Time Lords?
The Doctor: Dead. They burned with you. The end of the last great Time War. Everyone lost.
Dalek: And the coward survived.

A critique of rich collectors.

The Doctor: Let me tell you something, Van Statten. Mankind goes into space to explore, to be part of something greater.
Van Statten: Exactly! I wanted to touch the stars.
The Doctor: You just want to drag the stars down, stick them underground, underneath tons of sand and dirt, and label them. You’re about as far from the stars as you can get.

Another instance where the Doctor gets called out, this time, by Rose.

The Doctor: Rose, get out of the way now!
Rose: No. ‘Cause I won’t let you do this.
The Doctor: That thing killed hundreds of people!
Rose: It’s not the one pointing the gun at me.
The Doctor: I’ve got to do this. I’ve got to end it. The Daleks destroyed my home, my people. I’ve got nothing left.
Rose: But look at it.
The Doctor: What’s it doing?
Rose: It’s the sunlight, that’s all it wants.
The Doctor: It can’t—
Rose: It couldn’t kill Van Statten, it couldn’t kill me. It’s changing. What about you, Doctor? What the hell are you changing into?

Episode 7, “The Long Game” (Russell T. Davies):

Anyone who’s been without it knows, plumbing’s very important.

The Doctor: Rose is asking the right sort of questions: Why is it so hot?
Cathica: One minute you’re worried about the Empire and the next minute it’s the central heating.
The Doctor: Oh, never underestimate plumbing. Plumbing’s very important.

Simon Pegg’s contribution to the series. A good statement on how easily They can drum up fear to drive public policy, and a bit of philosophy, followed by a veiled threat.

The Editor: Create a climate of fear and it’s easy to keep the borders closed. It’s just a matter of emphasis. The right word in the right broadcast repeated often enough can destabilize an economy, invent an enemy, change a vote.
Rose: So all the people on Earth are like, slaves.
The Editor: Well, now. There’s an interesting point. Is a slave a slave if he doesn’t know he’s enslaved?
The Doctor: Yes.
The Editor: Oh. I was hoping for a philosophical debate. Is that all I’m going to get? “Yes.”?
The Doctor: Yes.
The Editor: You’re no fun.
The Doctor: Let me out of these manacles. You’ll find out how much fun I am.

Another critique of Capitalism: If we’re only focused on getting paid, all kinds of atrocities can be justified.

Rose: What about you? You’re not a jagra- a-belly—
The Doctor: Jagrafess.
Rose: You’re not a jagrafess. You’re human.
The Editor: Yeah, well, simply being human doesn’t pay very well.

Episode 8, “Father’s Day” (Paul Cornell):

A great comparison.

Rose: It’s so weird. The day my father died. I thought it’d be all sort of grim and stormy. It’s just another day.
The Doctor: The past is another country. 1987’s just the Isle of Wight.

The Doctor has regrets about ever taking up with Rose Tyler; all humans turn out to be marred by self-interest.

The Doctor: When we met, I said “Travel with me in space.” You said no. Then I said “Time machine”.
Rose: It wasn’t some big plan. I just saw it happening and I thought, I can stop it.
The Doctor: I did it again. I picked another stupid ape. I should have known. It’s not about showing you the universe. It never is. It’s about the universe doing something for you.

Awww! Who’s the cute widdle world-ender? You are!

The Doctor to Baby Rose: Now Rose, you’re not going to bring about the end of the world. Are you?

Episode 9, “The Empty Child” (Steven Moffat):

Red’s camp, but we’re reasonably safe.

Rose: What’s the emergency?
The Doctor: It’s mauve.
Rose: Mauve?
The Doctor: Universally recognized color for danger.
Rose: What happened to red?
The Doctor: That’s just humans. By everyone else’s standards, red’s camp. Oh, the misunderstandings. All those red alerts, all that dancing. It’s got a very basic flight computer. I’ve hacked in, slaved the TARDIS. Wherever it goes, we go.
Rose: And it’s safe, is it?
The Doctor: Totally. [Things go awry]. Okay, reasonably. I should have said reasonably there.

A commentary on sidekicks and companions everywhere.

The Doctor to the cat: You know, one day— Just one day, maybe, I’m going to meet somebody who gets the whole “Don’t wander off” thing. Nine hundred years of phonebox travel, it’s the only thing left to surprise me. [The phonebox rings].

Quips about the Doctor’s name are always classic.

The Doctor: Mr. Spock?
Rose: What was I supposed to say? You don’t have a name. Don’t you ever get tired of Doctor? Doctor who?
The Doctor: Nine centuries and I’m coping.

Honorable Mention: A bit of British Nationalism from Steven Moffat.

The Doctor: Amazing.
Nancy: What is?
The Doctor: 1941. Right now, not very far from here, the German war machine is rolling up the map of Europe. Country after country, falling like dominos. Nothing can stop it—nothing. Until one tiny, damp little island says “No”. “No. Not here”. A mouse in front of a lion. You’re amazing, the lot of you. I don’t know what you do to Hitler, but you frighten the hell out of me.

Episode 10, “The Doctor Dances” (Steven Moffat):

Famous last words

The Doctor: Go to your room! Go to your room! I mean it. I’m very very angry with you. I’m very very cross! Go to your room! [The infected patients go back to bed]. I’m really glad that worked. Those would have been terrible last words.

These next four are a package deal. Captain Jack Harkness’ interaction with the Doctor is usually awesome.

The Doctor: Sonic Blaster. 54th century. Weapons factory at Villengard?
Jack: You’ve been to the factories?
The Doctor: Once.
Jack: Well they’re gone now. Destroyed. Main reactor went critical. Vaporized the lot.
The Doctor: Like I said: once. There’s a banana grove there now. I like bananas. Bananas are good.

The Doctor: Go now! Don’t drop the banana!
Jack: Why not?
The Doctor: Good source of potassium!

Jack: Who has a sonic screwdriver?
The Doctor: I do!
Jack: Who looks at a screwdriver and thinks, “Ooh, this could be a little more sonic.”?
The Doctor: What, you’ve never been bored? Never had a long night? Never had a lot of cabinets to put up?

The Doctor: Come on, we’re not done yet. Assets! Assets!
Jack: Well, I’ve got a banana and in a pinch you could put up some shelves.

Again, Rose calls the Doctor out.

The Doctor: History says there was an explosion here. Who am I to argue with history?
Rose: Usually the first in line.

Episode 11, “Boom Town” (Russell T. Davies):

More interaction with Captain Jack.

Jack [about Rose and Mickey]: Aw, sweet. Look at these two. How come I never get any of that?
The Doctor: Buy me a drink first.
Jack: Such hard work.
The Doctor: But worth it.

The Universe certainly hasn’t gotten a day off…

Margaret: This is the technology of the gods.
The Doctor: Don’t worship me, I’d make a very bad god. wouldn’t get a day off for starters.

More of Russell T. Davies getting philosophical about psychopaths, and the Doctor getting called out.

Margaret: I spared her life.
The Doctor: You let one of them go but that’s nothing new. Every now and then a little victim’s spared because she smiled, ’cause he’s got freckles. ‘Cause they begged. And that’s how you live with yourself. That’s how you slaughter millions. Because once in awhile—on a whim, if the wind’s in the right direction—you happen to be kind.
Margaret: Only a killer would know that. Is that right? From what I’ve seen, your funny little happy go lucky little life leaves devastation in its wake. Always moving on because you dare not look back. Playing with so many peoples lives, you might as well be a god. And you’re right, Doctor. You’re absolutely right. Sometimes you let one go. Let me go.

Episode 12, “Bad Wolf” (Russell T. Davies):

Thus restarts the Doctor’s dislike and personal disuse of guns.

The Doctor: Who’s in charge of this place? This satellite’s more than a game station. Who killed Rose Tyler? I want an answer!
Male Lackey: She can’t reply. [The Doctor turns to him]. Don’t shoot!
The Doctor: Oh, don’t be so fey. Like I was ever going to shoot. [Throws him the gun]. Captain, we’ve got more guards on the way up. Secure the exits.
Captain Jack: Yes, sir.
The Doctor: You, what were you saying?
Male Lackey: But… I’ve got your gun.
The Doctor: Okay, so shoot me. Why can’t she answer?
Male Lackey: She’s, uh… Can I put this down?
The Doctor: If you want. Just hurry up.

A critique of the “Nazi Prison Guard” defense.

Lackey: If you’re not holding us hostage then open the door and let us out. The staff are terrified!
The Doctor: That’s the same staff who execute hundreds of contestants every day.
Lackey: That’s not our fault. We’re just doing our jobs.
The Doctor: And with that sentence you just lost the right to even talk to me. Now back off!

You gotta love it when the Doctor flexes. This beats out his proclamation to Lynda at the start of the episode.

Dalek: I will talk to the Doctor.
The Doctor: Oh will you? That’s nice. Hello!
Dalek: The Dalek stratagem nears completion. The fleet is almost ready. You will not intervene.
The Doctor: Oh really? Why’s that, then?
Dalek: We have your associate. You will obey or she will be exterminated.
The Doctor: No.
Dalek: Explain yourself.
The Doctor: I said “no.”
Dalek: What is the meaning of this negative?
The Doctor: It means “no.”
Dalek: But she will be destroyed!
The Doctor: No! ‘Cause this is what I’m gonna do. I’m gonna rescue her. I’m gonna save Rose Tyler from the middle of the Dalek fleet, and then I’m gonna save the Earth. And then—just to finish off—I’m gonna wipe every last stinking Dalek out of the sky!
Dalek: But you have no weapons, no defenses, no plan.
The Doctor: Yeah! And doesn’t that scare you to death. Rose?
Rose: Yes Doctor?
The Doctor: I’m coming to get you.

Episode 13,”The Parting of the Ways” (Russell T. Davies):

Another flex from the Doctor.

The Doctor: You know what they call me in the ancient legends on the Dalek home world? “The Oncoming Storm”. You might have removed all your emotions, but I reckon right down deep in your DNA there’s one little spark left. And that’s fear. Doesn’t it just burn when you face me?

Another flex.

The Dalek Emperor: Do not interrupt! Do not interrupt!
The Doctor: I think you’re forgetting something. I’m the Doctor and if there’s one thing I can do it’s talk. I’ve got five billion languages and you haven’t got one way of stopping me. So if anybody’s gonna shut up, it’s you!

The endearing final moments of Christopher Eccleston, with a bit of ego thrown in.

Rose: Tell me what’s going on.
The Doctor: I absorbed all the energy of the Time Vortex and no one’s meant to do that. Every cell in my body’s dying.
Rose: Can’t you do something?
The Doctor: Yeah. Doing it now. Time Lord’s have this sort of trick. It’s our little way of cheating death. Except… it means I’m gonna change. And I’m not gonna see you again. Not like this. Not with this daft old face. And before I go—
Rose: Don’t say that!
The Doctor: Rose, before I go, I just want to tell you, you were fantastic. Absolutely fantastic. And you know what? So was I.

So those are the top for me. True, there are others that didn’t make the list, but some were problematic, like the exchange between the Doctor and Jackie Tyler, where nothing is going to happen that doesn’t put either of them in a good light–though the difference in age gaps between Rose and her mother is a drop in the bucket compared to her versus the Doctor. Also not in here was Captain Jack on What Not to Wear (Episode 12) after getting undressed:

JACK: Okay. Defabricator. Does exactly what it says on the tin. Am I naked in front of millions of viewers?
TRINE-E + ZU-ZANA: Absolutely!
JACK: Ladies, your viewing figures just went up.

Or after being told their plans for him:

JACK: Now, hold on, ladies. I don’t want to have to shoot either one of you.
TRINE-E: But you’re unarmed!
ZU-ZANA: You’re naked!
[Jack produces a small hand weapon from somewhere behind him]
ZU-ZANA: But. that’s a Compact Laser Deluxe!
TRINE-E: Where were you hiding that?
JACK: You really don’t want to know.

However, ultimately, I decided to focus a bit more on scenes and interactions with the Doctor.

Did I miss any? Comment and I’ll respond. Click here for my Top 10 rankings.

Movies/Older Movies

The Terminator (1984)

Posted on by nwilson

You might be wondering, “What’s up with Nathan and time travel?” And you may have a point, but I wasn’t thinking about that link when I re-watched this recently. It just popped up in my Amazon Prime feed (though I own the first four on DVD) and it sounded good.

I thought I’d share some thoughts about the film, the premise, real-life news items (that possibly, sub-consciously affected my watchlist), the theory of time travel, and how the film holds up.

Background

Written and directed by James Cameron (also of Titanic and Avatar fame), Wikipedia says the film, “helped launch Cameron’s film career and solidify Schwarzenegger’s status as a leading man,” as it topped the box office for two weeks.

Gee, the role of a robot worked out well for a bodybuilder with little acting experience? They didn’t find his performance “too wooden?” Shocking. To be fair, Schwarzeneggar had already done two Conan films prior to this (1982 & 1984), but again, those weren’t exactly Oscar-worthy performances.

Unstoppable Automatons

In any case, the Wiki-lore on this movie states that, “suffering from a fever, Cameron had a nightmare about an invincible robot hit-man sent from the future to assassinate him.” I’ve had that nightmare, but only since watching The Terminator. However, it turns out that–according to Mike Pearl of Vibe)–“But as for the plot about a time-traveling soldier from the future on a mission to kill a foe in the present? He stole that—yep, stole in the legal sense—from an old episode of The Outer Limits written by sci-fi god-among-men Harlan Ellison.”

Nevertheless, the idea of an unstoppable automaton that just keeps coming have been around at least since the Golem of Prague myth, around the 16th Century. Prior to that, we still have the idea of Sisyphean tasks (e.g. rolling a large boulder up a hill, so it can roll back down again). So dreams like this may have been common.

Real Life Intersections

Last year, the film jumped back into the spotlight, as researchers at Cornell University created creepy lifelike machines that could grow, learn and die. More recently, China has launched a national surveillance system, with over 20 million cameras, that it calls The “Skynet Project”. I always gotta wonder about people who cluelessly name things after pop culture they like. Do they think they’re doing a “wink?!” “We know it looks like we’re creating a dangerous surveillance system that, if it were to become self-aware, would take over the world and doom all of humanity, but we’ve named it after the fictional project that does exactly that, so it’s ok”? WTF?

Time Travel

The theory of time travel in the Terminator franchise is a moving target, but if we look at just this first movie, it’s pretty simple. The Terminator has to go back in time to kill Sarah Connor because in the future that will be, it already did. And Kyle Reese has to go back to stop it–and father John Connor–for the same reason: because he already did. It doesn’t even attempt to alter the past, but rather, creates it, and so it creates a time-loop that closes itself, without any paradox. We don’t know if the humans will win, but we do have the knowledge that they’re at least annoying Skynet, so maybe they’re on the right path.

Does it hold up?

Sci fi movies from the 1980’s fare remarkably badly in the #MeToo era (I’m looking at you, Weird Science). My “Wall O’DVD’s” is a lot less impressive when you take out all the problematic titles. So how does The Terminator fare?

Well, I don’t claim to be an expert, but, “fairly well.” Watching it again, I didn’t have as many *cringe* moments as I have with other popular films from the period. True, the sex scene–though conceptually necessary for furthering the plot–could have been set up and executed differently. The relationship between Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese is a bit problematic–hormones (she’s supposed to be 19, in the script) mixed with the adrenaline from being rescued several times, compounded with the idea that he’s a virgin who came back in time specifically for her seems to add a note of pity, if not obligation to the sex scene. The main thing that saves the relationship is that, as Kyle’s strength wanes, Sarah’s rises, so that she’s carrying him in the end, and thus, she alone ultimately terminates the Terminator.

“Wow, Mr. Man, you didn’t find any problematic gender issues in this? Well you sure did your due diligence.”

Ok, so what did I miss? Comments? Thoughts?

Ramblings

Take 3!

Posted on by nwilson

Alright, I’m back! In April 2018, after running my first Boston Marathon, I was primed to give this blogging thing a second try, and to reach a sustainable model for posting content. Then I gave up on social media and backed away from stand up comedy. In the words of one former advisor, “Life always gets in the way, if you let it.”

During my hiatus–specifically September 2018–my “pack” got an offer to live in Chicago, and we jumped at the opportunity. It meant leaving my tenured, Associate Professor position for an uncertain future, but I was ready. What followed was a marathon (Kansas City), the wife’s move, a job search, another marathon (Boston 2019), a house renovation and sale, a Black Belt, my move, training for a new career, and now a global pandemic.

Now, in the era of COVID-19, I’ve decided to try again. Being that I’m retired from academic life, I’ve decided to shift the focus of this blog to pop culture critique more generally–what I’m into, what I like, what I’m currently watching. I’ve created meta-categories of TV, Movies and Stand up (where all the old content can still be found), and I’ll still write about stand up. However, since I’m no longer “publishing or perishing” the tone will hopefully be more fun, and the content less “eggheaded” (though not completely egghead free). Perhaps people will even read it! I hope you enjoy!

Dr. Who (Reboot, 2005-)/Series 1/Television

Dr. Who, Series 1: Best Alien(s)

Posted on by nwilson

[Spoilers] We’ve got a lot to choose from here. In order of appearance, we meet:

Episode 1, “Rose”: The Nestene Consciousness, a hive mind that can possess plastic as Autons, mannequins come to life to terrorize London. These first appeared opposite the third Doctor, John Pertwee, (Season 8, series 1, 1971)

Episode 2, “The End of the World”: We meet advanced evolutions of earthly species, including trees called The Trees of Cheem (most notably Jabe, played by Yasmin Bannerman, Lute and Coffa). There’s also the Moxx of Balhoon, the Adherents of the Repeated Meme (a plot red herring), the brothers Hop Pyleen (the inventors of Hypo-slip Travel Systems), Cal Spark Plug, Mr. and Mrs Pakoo, the Ambassadors from the City State of Binding Light, the Face of Boe, and finally, not an alien but the last “True” human, Lady Cassandra O’Brien.

Episode 3, “The Unquiet Dead”: The Gelth, a people who have lost corporeal form, crossed a rift in space-time and are animating corpses.

Episode 4 & 5, “Aliens of London”/”World War Three”: The Slitheen, a family of an egg-laying, calcium-based, Raxacoricofallapatorians, (native to Raxacoricofallapatorius).

Episode 6, “Dalek”: The eponymous villain is a genetically manipulated mutant, the (apparent) last survivor of it’s supremely speciesist race, wrapped in a near-impenetrable–if hokey–robotic body. This species has a long Dr. Who tradition, first appearing in “The Dead Planet” in 1963, and cast as the nemesis of all Time Lords, including–and perhaps especially–The Doctor.

Episode 7, “The Long Game”: The Jagrafess, a creature that likes it cold, and controls journalism Satellite 5 and thus all human knowledge.

Episode 8, “Father’s Day”: The Reapers, the apparent riot police of the time-line [with all that term’s 2020 connotations], who try to heal wounds in time and space by killing people.

Episode 9 & 10, “The Empty Child”/”The Doctor Dances”: Not really aliens, but tech; nanogenes try to heal humans, but get the biology wrong.

Episode 11, “Boom Town”: The Slitheen again, the Raxacoricofallapatorians.

Episode 12 & 13, “Bad Wolf”/”The Parting of the Ways”: The Daleks again.

So who wins? Everyone else says Daleks, as they’re a classic Who villain, and they were voted by science fiction magazine, SFX readers in 2010 as the all-time greatest monster–beating out Godzilla and even Gollum from LoTR. And I’m willing to overlook their retro look and embrace the evil of a speciesist race that wants to “EXTERMINATE!” all other sentient life. However, they annoy me to no end, and they are no match for The Doctor. Every time he faces them, he bests them, no matter how many there are. Besides, Lady Cassandra is speciesist too, just less well equipped (and more in need of moisturizing).

On that standard–beating The Doctor–the most terrifying are the Reapers–they’re an elemental force and the Doctor seems out of his league in facing them. The only way we get out of the episode is the death of Peter Tyler. They’re a close second for me, even though they’re new to the reboot–if that matters to you.

The Slitheen/Raxacoricofallapatorians appear more frequently than the Daleks in this season, so they seem a front-runner for best alien–and it’s just fun to say, and to watch others try to say! However, they also are new to the reboot, and they seem to be as much an excuse for situational fart jokes as villains (a key plot device, as it turns out, but nonetheless, juvenile).

My favorites, however, are the Trees of Cheem, particularly Jabe. Perhaps it’s a Star Trek-esque, green-girl thing, but she’s one of the better-developed side characters in the season–she’s wasted on a single episode. Also, an honorable mention to the Face of Boe, who grows on you as the seasons pass, but is disqualified, for reasons we’ll save until later.

So, that’s my two cents. Agree? Disagree? Something I missed? Drop it in the comments.

Dr. Who (Reboot, 2005-)/Series 1/Television

Dr. Who, Series 1 (2005)

Posted on by nwilson
Series 1

A couple weeks ago, my HBO Now icon disappeared, as HBO Max officially took over. Once I signed on the for new service (which cost the same), I was pleased to see, among the new listings available, the complete catalogue of the revival of Dr. Who. I had watched several seasons, up until Peter Capaldi took over (12th doctor, Series 8, 2014), and I’d wanted to watch the newest Doctor’s antics. So to get caught up, I decided to re-watch the whole shebang. And, in an effort to get back to blogging, I thought I’d write up my thoughts here.

For those of you living in a cave, Series 1 (2005) stars Christopher Eccleston as the 9th Doctor, traveling in his TARDIS (Time And Relative Dimension In Space)–a time-machine disguised as a police public call box that’s “bigger on the inside”–with his companion Rose Tyler, played by Billie Piper. Also appearing regularly are Rose’s boyfriend, Mickey Smith (Noel Clark), her mom, Jackie Tyler (Camille Coduri), a con-man and former “Time Agent” from the 51st century, Captain Jack Harkness (John Barrowman), and, briefly, a wunderkind named Adam Mitchell (Bruno Langley).

Series Bests

I thought I’d weigh in on my picks for the “bests” in each series/season, because, as High Fidelity (1995) author, Nick Hornby, writes: “I agreed that what really matters is what you like, not what you are like… Books, records, films – these things matter. Call me shallow but it’s the f@*#’in’ truth” [emphasis mine]. So what follows in the Dr. Who category are my takes on a few aspects of the series: Best Alien(s), Best Quotes/Exchanges (pt. 1/pt. 2), and Most Disturbing Premise (pt. 1/pt. 2).

Cases and Current Events/Comics in the News/Stand Up Comedy

Michelle Wolf and Shades of Colbert

Posted on by nwilson

I’ve been avidly following the aftermath of the White House Correspondents Dinner, as it’s basically where my studies jumped off [i.e. with Stephen Colbert’s performance in 2006 – read my take here]. So here, again, we have a comedian on the hotseat for their remarks at this event.

Now it’s Michelle Wolf’s turn. You’d think the WHCA would learn about hiring former The Daily Show (TDS) correspondents to speak at events for Republican administrations. Apparently not.

Setting the scene

Exactly as with Colbert, Wolf was a former correspondent whose work was admired by the press corps, and as such was invited to speak.  Although Wolf has been quoted (by Mae Yen Yap of the Post, Athens (8/26/2017)) as saying

My first priority is to make people laugh. If they get something out of it, great. But I’m not trying to change the world.

(read my comments about that here), as with Colbert, Wolf did what she has always done, both as a TDS correspondent and presumably will do on her own show, The Break with Michelle Wolf (Netflix, slated to begin May 27th, if this all works out). TDS has always been first and foremost about critiquing the media itself. In this spirit, Wolf roasted not only the administration, but the correspondents themselves. And as with Colbert, these same correspondents now seem to take issue with her performance.

My recap of Colbert

When Colbert’s incident broke, I analyzed the speech itself and the reactions to it, pointing out three major movements in the press: First, there was silence, crickets from the press, echoing that (it was later argued) of the people in the room. Critics in the blogosphere argued that whereas humor provokes laughter, silence is an indication of outrage, and therefore politics – because it wasn’t funny, it must have been political.

Then the press argued that their silence does not indicate outrage, but judgment of the form the jokes took, and the decorum of the comic. Thus

The press argues that their silence rhetorically constitutes the message as neither political nor humorous. Because they weren’t offended, it wasn’t political; because they didn’t laugh, it wasn’t humor.

Finally, I engaged in a “thought experiment” to display the value of Colbert’s address as a text that is open to interpretation, and thus produces political acts. However, far from Colbert’s address as a mere event – something that happened that started a separate and independent conversation – the creation of the address itself was a political act.

A tentative conclusion

My basic point was and still is on this blog that a lot of people are still – perhaps unknowingly – making the argument that humor is separate from politics. However, we all know that something can be both funny and impactful, even to the same person.

In order to keep this brief, I’ll end this post here. However, over the next few days, I’m going to get into the similarities and differences between Colbert’s incident and Wolf’s, so stick around.