my biggest problem with A Good Man Goes To War

[deird1]

The more I see of Steven Moffat, the more I admire Russell T. Davies. If nothing else, for his ability to get Moffat to write well.


For my issues with Moffat's Doctor Who as a whole, see Sherlock is Garbage and Here's Why. For most of my problems with the episode in question, see this review.

But my main problem with the episode is simple: it makes things less interesting.

There is only one real point to A Good Man Goes To War. It's not the plot, or the villains, or the clever timey-wimey whatevers, or any of the things that so many Doctor Who episodes are about. The point, as far as this episode is concerned, is THE BIG REVEAL about River Song.

That reveal being:
1) That River Song has been raised to assassinate the Doctor.
2) That River Song is effectively a Time Lord.
3) That River Song is Amy and Rory's daughter.

But...
1) Clearly, despite being raised to do that, she clearly no longer wants to.
2) Oh, so that's why there was a little girl regenerating at the start of the season? And not someone new? ...Okay.
3) Which means that Amy and Rory's baby, just stolen, (a) will get to adulthood safely, so we don't need to worry about that; (b) won't be rescued by Amy and Rory before she grows up, so we don't get to anticipate that; (c) is now kinda boring.

You see what I mean. There's no "Gasp! River Song is a secret assassin who wants to assassinate the Doctor!" Cause... no. And there's no "Gasp! River Song might be a Time Lord too!" Cause... who cares, really? And there's no tension about the very big conflict that was just raised in this very episode, because we don't actually need to be concerned about this little baby who's just been kidnapped to be brainwashed and raised as a ninja assassin ...eh, she'll be fine.

Even Amy and Rory - who, let us remember, have just had their newborn daughter stolen - never express any further concern about tracking her down and getting her back from the kidnappers. They just shrug and go "Well, River seems to have turned out okay." and get on with their Tardis adventuring. And if they, the parents, don't care about the baby, why should we?


I'm sure there are many worse episodes with many terrible writing issues. But this was the first episode that got me to actively stop caring about the show. And I never really got back into caring about it again.

Comments

[elisi]

The more I see of Steven Moffat, the more I admire Russell T. Davies. If nothing else, for his ability to get Moffat to write well.
It's very early, so I don't have time to read everything, but this made me do a doubletake. I guess a lot of this is just personal preferences, but I'll take Moffat over RTD any day. (Gimme that meta and the happy endings!)

Mostly though, what struck me was the idea that RTD had any influence over what Moffat wrote (beyond basic outlines). RTD was notorious for re-writing everyone, except Moffat, Chibnall and a couple of others. What Moffat wrote stands on its own, wherever it may be. :)

[deird1]

See, I find that some artists (notably Whedon and Moffat) tend to write really well when given a ton of restrictions, but write worse the more freedom they're given.

I was initially SO enthusiastic about Moffat taking over Doctor Who. And I've never liked Davies' season enders. But, I think I've decided that:
1) Davies is an okay writer and a good showrunner; Moffat is a good writer and a CRAP showrunner.
2) Davies is good at seasons; Moffat is good at single episodes, but sucks at seasons.

In other words, give me Moffat. And then put Davies in charge of what he gets assigned.

[shadowkat]

See, I find that some artists (notably Whedon and Moffat) tend to write really well when given a ton of restrictions, but write worse the more freedom they're given.

I'd agree with that assessment. Having watched both being reigned in a bit, and both not.

They are both very good dialogue writers, and excellent episode writers...but sloppy long-term plotters, and show-runners. They need someone to reign them in a bit or keep them focused.

Although I'd say Moffat's better at plot-twists and tricky plotting and Whedon is better at emotional character arcs (in that way Whedon has more in common with Davies.)

I'm not sure I'd agree that RT Davies is a good show-runner, he reminded a lot of Whedon in some ways. I liked some of his individual stories, but his character arcs..he lost me.
But I do agree about Moffat and Whedon.

[deird1]

Although I'd say Moffat's better at plot-twists and tricky plotting and Whedon is better at emotional character arcs (in that way Whedon has more in common with Davies.)

Totally. I love watching Moffat do stuff like Blink, where the plot just keeps spinning you in new directions. Whereas Davies doing Father's Day and Whedon doing The Body are so beautiful at the emotional stuff. Honestly, even though Whedon and Davies both slightly suck at plot, I'm usually so caught up in the emotions that I don't notice.

[elisi]

Funny how we all see things in different ways. I much prefer Moffat's arcs, but then I care not just more about the characters, but about all the meta, and Moffat's meta is... *kisses fingers* Immensely satisfying.

ETA: I would nominate S5 as the single best season of New Who (by... quite a distance), probably followed by S10. So no, I would not agree that Moffat sucks at seasons. :)

[beer_good_foamy]

Even Amy and Rory - who, let us remember, have just had their newborn daughter stolen - never express any further concern about tracking her down and getting her back from the kidnappers. They just shrug and go "Well, River seems to have turned out okay." and get on with their Tardis adventuring.

Yeah, that really bothered me too. Though it does kind of match Moffat's character arcs in general - see also how Rory and Amy get killed off written out; they're forced to live out their lives in the 1800s and die without ever seeing their families again, whatchagonnado, it's not like that's something you could fix with a time machine. Moffat is mostly interested in characters as representatives of whatever symbolism he's chasing at the moment, not as characters. Which is all the more annoying because he's great at coming up with both characters and monsters, but beyond the purpose he dreamed them up for, we're not expected to think about them.

[shadowkat]

I'd agree with this assessment having watched four Moffat series to date: Coupling, Doctor Who, Sherlock, and Jekyll. He reminds me a little bit of Aaron Sorkin -- who equally gets wrapped up into whatever idea he's chasing and characters be damned. Also Spike Lee who does the same thing.

Whedon started to go the direction too after he got successful.

I think they get a little into their "idea" /"symbolism" and lose track of the characters as a result?

[deird1]

Yep. Hence the weird thing he does with River Song, where she practically has a different backstory every time she's on screen. (No, wait! Now she time travels! No, wait! Now she's meeting the Doctor in exact reverse order, because it's poignant! No, wait! Now we'll forget that and she'll be back to meeting him in a random order! No, wait...)

[schneefink]

The way I interpreted it - and that was a while ago, to be fair - is less that Amy and Rory don't care about the baby, and more like, if you want to interfere in River's past, you really should ask River first - which don't get me wrong, they should have done - and River seemed fine with who she ended up being. It could have been a very interesting question, but instead it never came up.

[deird1]

I don't really care what decision they make, exactly - but I do think there should be a decision about what they're going to do about their baby being kidnapped. It should at least come up in conversation...