Review The Eaters of Light (2017)

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
doctor_who___twelve__peter_capaldi__by_maya_winchester-d7x485k.jpg


445281126_orig.jpg


Your thoughts on this story....

A long time ago, the Roman legion of the ninth vanished into the mists of Scotland. Bill has a theory about what happened, and the Doctor has a time machine. But when they arrive in ancient Aberdeenshire, what they find is a far greater threat than any army. In a cairn, on a hillside, is a doorway leading to the end of the world.







On to the next story....

WORLD ENOUGH AND TIME/THE DOCTOR FALLS.....

https://www.imdforums.com/threads/world-enough-and-time-the-doctor-falls-2017.2839/


Back to the previous story....

EMPRESS OF MARS....

https://www.imdforums.com/threads/empress-of-mars-2017.2689/
 
Last edited:

chainsaw_metal1

Member: Rank 8
I have to say, the trailer doesn't give me much to expect, other than there will be Romans. Again. Since I really liked Empress of Mars, I expect the next episode will probably disappoint me.

Update: It didn't wow me. There was some good stuff there, and it came from Classic Who writer Rona Munro, but it felt like it was rushed. This one would have benefited greatly from being stretched out into a two-part serial. The final scene between The Doctor and Missy was touching, but I still don't trust her.

Also, I find it interesting that Moffat made the Romans out to be good guys during Smith's run, and now we get to see how the native Picts actually felt about their presence in their land.
 
Last edited:

the badwolf

Member: Rank 1
I kind of liked the episode but also felt it could have been so much better with two parts. I am looking forward to next week with the real cybermen (from mondas) but I do hope they get it right
 

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
THE EATERS OF LIGHT

I absolutely loved the title of this serial when I first learned of it. It reminded me of the sort of title you might get for an old-fashioned black-and-white 1950s science fiction film. For the record, I still love the title of this serial - it’s just the serial itself that I’m not too keen on. In fact, to tell the truth, I’m less than entirely thrilled by it. There might be one or two nice moments in it, but there are simply too many other moments in it that simply irritate the shit out of me. I simply found the whole damned thing too irritating to enjoy.

Those Romans were just not convincing to me in any way, shape or form. They all looked to me like they were searching about for a place to recharge their mobile phones or tablets. Rory Williams might have had a good excuse for acting like this and might have been able to get away with it, but this mob of incompetent character actors did not. And what luck for Bill that she came across the only group of Roman invaders in the entire country that respected her race, gender and sexual orientation and decided not to have a party with her anyway. How very civilized and PC of them. In fact, I believe that Bill even commented on how very modern everything was...

And I freely admit that I am certainly no historical expert, but I do have just one little question concerning that very charming and likeable gay black Roman... Why the fuck hadn’t he been cast out or killed by his comrades? I’m pretty sure I don’t remember any mention of there being gay pride parades being held in Britain way back then. Or am I mistaken? And another thing… Was it just me, or was the force of foreign invaders and occupiers - who subjugated the native people and subjected them to all forms of harsh and horrific treatment - represented in a manner not to dissimilar to that of a lost company of boy scouts?

And what the hell was that nonsensical bullshit about the crows talking? I’m sure it must have seemed very poignant and touching on paper when Rona Munro was writing it, but when I saw it on the TV screen in front of me, it all came across as a load of utter bollocks. And what was all that bullshit with Bill figuring out that the TARDIS can translate languages? The last time a companion did that, it was a clue to the Doctor that she had been taken over and was being controlled by an evil and malevolent alien force. I refer of course to Sarah Jane Smith in the classic DOCTOR WHO serial, THE MASQUE OF MANDRAGORA…

For me, it was all too modern and too rushed by far.
 

Gavin

Member: Rank 6
VIP
And I freely admit that I am certainly no historical expert, but I do have just one little question concerning that very charming and likeable gay black Roman... Why the fuck hadn’t he been cast out or killed by his comrades?
I was a little put off by that as well and I'm not a fan of the show's continued (?)whitewashing(?) of history rather than showing how bad things could be for minority groups in the past. However a very quick bit of research online suggested that the Roman's were pretty good at assimilating with people of different backgrounds and while black people were rare in the empire they did exist and could be citizens. Homosexuality seems to have had a mixed history but seems to have been generally tolerated (while often looked down upon). So the idea of a gay black Roman soldier is actually not out of the question.
 

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
I was a little put off by that as well and I'm not a fan of the show's continued (?)whitewashing(?) of history rather than showing how bad things could be for minority groups in the past. However a very quick bit of research online suggested that the Roman's were pretty good at assimilating with people of different backgrounds and while black people were rare in the empire they did exist and could be citizens. Homosexuality seems to have had a mixed history but seems to have been generally tolerated (while often looked down upon). So the idea of a gay black Roman soldier is actually not out of the question.
Maybe not out of the question, but still questionable.

And worse than that... convenient.

And how convenient for Bill that she came across the only group of Roman invaders in the entire country that respected her race, gender and sexual orientation and decided not to have a party with her anyway.
 

Gavin

Member: Rank 6
VIP
That's one of the things I liked about Thin Ice. The "bad guy" actually treated Bill in a manner that would have been considered perfectly acceptable in that time period. As opposed to all the other people who took a far more 21st century approach.
 

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
That's one of the things I liked about Thin Ice. The "bad guy" actually treated Bill in a manner that would have been considered perfectly acceptable in that time period. As opposed to all the other people who took a far more 21st century approach.
So... The villains are anyone who simply acted in a socially acceptable manner for the period in which they lived?

How interesting.

It would be educational to jump forward a century or two to see how they judge us, our actions and our contemporary global society. Not to mention the actions and views of certain show-runners for the BBC. It might well turn out that we're not as civilized or morally superior as we'd like to think we are...
 

chainsaw_metal1

Member: Rank 8
So... The villains are anyone who simply acted in a socially acceptable manner for the period in which they lived?
I don't know that that's what's being said. In the case presented, he was the villain of Thin Ice, and he did, indeed, act in accordance with the social norms. Not only most white's attitude toward people of color, but his upper class (twit) upbringing gave him an air of superiority.

I do see the point being made, which is that we seem to have - for about a couple of decades - started painting people differently for entertainment, so as to not offend too many people, villains and heroes alike. The first time it came to my attention in any real capacity was when The Patriot was released, and Gibson's character was merely "based on" a historical character, since the original character was a slave owning murderous bastard, and that wouldn't have brought in audiences. Some Civil War era movies have downplayed the treatment of the enslaved in the South, so as to not offend Southern viewers, but also not to shock others (other movies, like 12 Years A Slave, have shown the full brutality of their treatment, which is more realistic and authentic).

It would be educational to jump forward a century or two to see how they judge us, our actions and our contemporary global society. Not to mention the actions and views of certain show-runners for the BBC. It might well turn out that we're not as civilized or morally superior as we'd like to think we are...
When I was still blogging, I had planned on writing a piece about viewing classic movies, television and literature with a modern bias. Case in point, my favorite movie is Casablanca, and I have friends who think me wrong for liking it because Louis - a reluctant hero of the film - is a rapist. I had never looked at it as such, and it did sort of mar how I see the character now, but it doesn't ruin the movie for me, or his actions in the end. It was a different time, with different social mores. We can't edit history simply because it doesn't fit with the current world view, or may be inflammatory.

That being said, if you look at the shit show that my country has elected to office, I think I'm pretty damned civilized and morally superior.
 

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
I don't know that that's what's being said. In the case presented, he was the villain of Thin Ice, and he did, indeed, act in accordance with the social norms. Not only most white's attitude toward people of color, but his upper class (twit) upbringing gave him an air of superiority.
That wasn't really what I was trying to say.

I'm just sick and fucking tired of DOCTOR WHO's show-runners sugar coating history and reality in general. If they're willing to acknowledge why Cybermen prefer to subject children rather than adults to their conversion treatment, they why are they suddenly shy about the reality of history?

In THE EATERS OF LIGHT, I didn't expect relentless, in-your-face, blood-thirsty violence from go to woe, but I did expect those Romans to act like a professional unit of militarily-trained soldiers. I did not expect to see them act like a bunch of fucking boy scouts who seem to have wandered away from the campfire and become lost in the woods at night! At the very least, it would've been nice to see them treat Bill with a bit more suspicion and perhaps even hostility to begin with.

Sorry, mate, but the inconsistency and blatant stupidity on display in DOCTOR WHO just fucking frustrates me sometimes.
I do see the point being made, which is that we seem to have - for about a couple of decades - started painting people differently for entertainment, so as to not offend too many people, villains and heroes alike. The first time it came to my attention in any real capacity was when The Patriot was released, and Gibson's character was merely "based on" a historical character, since the original character was a slave owning murderous bastard, and that wouldn't have brought in audiences. Some Civil War era movies have downplayed the treatment of the enslaved in the South, so as to not offend Southern viewers, but also not to shock others (other movies, like 12 Years A Slave, have shown the full brutality of their treatment, which is more realistic and authentic).
I would have thought that the biggest issue for the makers of THE PATRIOT was the reality behind Mel Gibson, not the historical character he was playing. :emoji_wink:

And 12 YEARS A SLAVE was absolutely brilliant. I was angry and pissed off all the way through it. Not that my mood is the criteria I normally use to judge a film, but you know what I mean.
When I was still blogging, I had planned on writing a piece about viewing classic movies, television and literature with a modern bias. Case in point, my favorite movie is Casablanca, and I have friends who think me wrong for liking it because Louis - a reluctant hero of the film - is a rapist. I had never looked at it as such, and it did sort of mar how I see the character now, but it doesn't ruin the movie for me, or his actions in the end. It was a different time, with different social mores. We can't edit history simply because it doesn't fit with the current world view, or may be inflammatory.
Humans are imperfect - whether it be in the past, the present or the future. It's all a part of the Human adventure.

As I said earlier, how will any of us be judged a couple of centuries from now?
That being said, if you look at the shit show that my country has elected to office, I think I'm pretty damned civilized and morally superior.
Compared to Trump, so is your average orangutan...
 

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
I'm just sick and fucking tired of DOCTOR WHO's show-runners sugar coating history and reality in general.

And usually with very poor, flat or bland actors doing the whitewashing.

That doesn't help matters either.

It's like they go through drama school, come out of it, and have learned nothing about, like, using emotion in their voice or anything - and their facial expressions showing zero emotional reaction to any of the events that they are experiencing! :emoji_confused:

All very odd.
 
Last edited:

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
And usually with very poor, flat or bland actors doing the whitewashing.

That doesn't help matters either.

It's like they go through drama school, come out of it, and have learned nothing about, like, using emotion in their voice or anything - and their facial expressions showing zero emotional reaction to the events they are experiencing! :emoji_confused:

All very odd.
Not if they're all really Autons...
 

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
All I remember of this one is talentless modern day poor actors as weakly acted Roman Soldiers talking to Clara underground somewhere. .

Everything else has gone.

Maybe there was a story in there somewhere, but I sure can't recall it.
 
Top