Kerblam!

[promethia_tenk]

I think this might be my favorite plot of the whole season so far?

In that it gave a nuanced sci-fi look into a very real looming social crisis. I was expecting a scathing take-down of Amazon's warehouse practices, which I would have been totally fine with and would have been in keeping with the themes of the season, but instead it went deeper to the issue of what happens when the robots take all of our jobs. Because Amazon and the like are just a prequel, a warm-up to what's going to happen.

If you've been on the internet in the last five years and somehow have never seen 'Humans Need Not Apply,' now would be an excellent time to do that:

"Humans Need Not Apply" (Watch on YouTube)

Actually, I think the most chilling idea of the whole episode is that the human response to robots taking over the jobs that they are better suited to doing (read: most if not all of them) would be some kind of human affirmative action program for employment. Because fighting for the rights of humans to continue serving as inferiorly-performing and badly treated cogs in the system is exactly the kind of unimaginative, reactionary response that we would come up with as a society. I suppose we're meant to take it as read that the power and class structure of this world was so crippling that a society in which nobody actually needs to work was still bent to serve the few and neglect the many. Ok, admittedly that an extremely real possibility. But I'd have liked a line or two about how fifty years ago everybody thought universal basic income would be the solution and then it all went even more wrong. Or something the like. Tell me there are other people out there coming up with better solutions here, even if they can't get them enacted. I do know that Human Resource Lady's line at the end that they are going to make the company 50% human-powered came over more than a little tone deaf. Was she watching the rest of the episode? Am I meant to be left with this crushing sense that nothing has been solved? (Actually, the answer to that is probably yes, isn't it?)

I did like the Doctor's assertion that systems aren't good or evil, only our responses to them. Because, look, humans not having to do menial jobs (or any jobs) should be a good thing, if we approach it correctly. But we're currently doing absolutely nothing to try to make that the case.

It's rare for Doctor Who to really engage me on this level, but I liked it. I'll admit this issue is a bit of a personal fascination of mine.

Otherwise, then, the character stuff continues to be lacking, but weaponized bubble wrap is probably the most ingenious Doctor Who menace of all time.

Comments

[shadowkat]

Yeah, the morality play style of dealing with social issues that Doctor Who tends to engage in never does much for me one way or the other? I prefer the kind of messy realism you get with something like Battlestar Galactica. So I can see what people think this episode is saying and why they find it so angering, but . . . I just don't care? And frankly, if it had gotten its messaging right I wouldn't have cared either. It's not what I watch Doctor Who for.

I agree. It's why Doctor Who, Star Trek, Twilight Zone and a lot of the episodic style sci-fi series don't quite work or appeal to me for lengthy periods of time. It's also my difficulty with a lot of speculative science fiction.

I think it depends on what your focus in on?

For me, it's characters, the relationships between them, the plot (how they solve the problem), and then, the theme or message. I don't really want to be preached too, I can go to church for that -- and well lately have been avoiding it.

My difficulty with moralistic fiction is often the characters and plot get lost playing to the demands of the theme. Also, there's a tendency to be a bit "neat" or black and white with the moral messages. I much prefer series like Battlestar Galatica which pursues the gray areas of the moral landscape, depicting how it morality is shifting thing, not stagnate and often depending on various other mitigating factors.

I like Doctor Who, but I don't take it that seriously. And so far this season about four episodes were enjoyable.

My problems with this episode weren't thematic in nature. I just had difficulties with the plot structure and felt there wasn't enough focus on the characters. I liked last week's a bit better in that regard.

Frequently true. I read enough to get what people are on about, but yeah . . . not sure I'll find it fruitful to dwell on. But I've not been deeply engaged with this season as it is.

Agreed. At the end of the day, it's subjective. I can't say I'm that engaged with Who either...but then I haven't been engaged since Doctor Song was killed off. I'm trying to like Jodi Whittaker's Who, but...wildly ambivalent.

[promethia_tenk]

I have a weird relationship to Who, Star Trek, and a lot of other genre shows that tend to have monster of the week structures because I do rather love them, but the stories frequently do nothing for me. I think that separation allows me to more or less ignore the stories and thus enjoy the characters more? Whereas something like Battlestar the characters and storylines are so enmeshed. It's all one weighty block and you have to take it all or none. I've never read fic for BSG because it feels like the show leaves no room for it (I'm sure others would disagree, based on the existence of BSG fic, but in my brain it just doesn't work that way, it's not that kind of show).

But, yeah, I'm not here to be preached at by these kinds of shows on the week by week level. If the broader series-wide themes don't appeal to me, I won't watch, but story by story I only really care insofar as it affects the characters I care about. Debating the intricacies of was X action the right one to do in the situation of the week I couldn't care less about.

My problems with this episode weren't thematic in nature. I just had difficulties with the plot structure and felt there wasn't enough focus on the characters. I liked last week's a bit better in that regard.
Last week's was far more straight-forward so it did give the characters more room to breathe. I think last week's was probably the strongest episode of the season so far. This one I liked because it was attempting a far more complicated structure than anything else this year. Even if it screwed it up, my brain perked up and went 'oh yay, something is happening (finally)!'

Agreed. At the end of the day, it's subjective. I can't say I'm that engaged with Who either...but then I haven't been engaged since Doctor Song was killed off. I'm trying to like Jodi Whittaker's Who, but...wildly ambivalent.
I've come to love the Capaldi years deeply, but it was work. I was definitely half checked-out for two years. I knew this season was going to be a let-down from Moffat, but I guess I was hoping it would be more fun than this is and that I'd be more engaged with the characters. Chibbs has always pretty reliably delivered on both of those fronts, and it's just confusing and frustrating that it's not happening here.

[shadowkat]

I knew this season was going to be a let-down from Moffat, but I guess I was hoping it would be more fun than this is and that I'd be more engaged with the characters. Chibbs has always pretty reliably delivered on both of those fronts, and it's just confusing and frustrating that it's not happening here.

The comedy is missing. Or rather Moffat was better at comedy -- makes sense he came from situational comedy (his first series was Coupling), while Chinbal and to a degree RT Davies are more dramatic writers. I miss the humor.

But, yeah, I'm not here to be preached at by these kinds of shows on the week by week level. If the broader series-wide themes don't appeal to me, I won't watch, but story by story I only really care insofar as it affects the characters I care about.

I've noticed that preaching can occur in the "serial format" and the "episodic or monster of the week format". Just as there are monster of the week series that really aren't preachy at all -- and you have to work to find the theme.(I don't really see Doctor Who as all that preachy...often its theme is buried in the action and fans fight over what it is trying to say. LOL!)

I've noticed that if a show-runner sticks with a show too long, and gets really popular, they have tendency to get preachy or use their series as their own personal soap box. (Doctor Who cycles through show-runners and leads too often for it to get preachy. I'll give it that. Does it have morality plays of the week? Yes. But often the morality gets buried in the plot hijinks...that the fans spend the next two weeks arguing over what it was.)

Debating the intricacies of was X action the right one to do in the situation of the week I couldn't care less about.

Probably wise. 98% of the fan kerfuffles I've seen in fandoms (doesn't matter which one, seems to be the common denominator), are about the moral actions of the characters. Fans are always arguing and getting huffy about whether X or Y was right to do this or that.

I admit I like to argue about the moral implications of the action, but I'm more interested in the motivations behind it. Or what it reveals about the character. Also if X was morally superior week after week -- the show would be boring and unrealistic. That said...what X does may or may not have a greater bearing on the thematic arc. Depends on X's role in the story, I guess, and why the writers went that direction. For example Doctor Who not caring that much about Charlie and more focused on whizzing the others to safety, was in character and made sense. Charlie was impossible to save, and the Doctor has lost a lot of people. I think to a degree the Doctor is struggling with how to process those losses, prevent more, and stay sane.
That can be an interesting discussion. But if you waste time arguing over whether this Doctor is more moral than the last one...you've lost me. LOL!