Finally someone addressing the reduced number of episodes this season! I do believe 73 yards should have been a two-parter and should have happened further along the season so the audience could connect with Ruby better (and that's why The Curse of Clyde Langer worked better - the audience knew Clyde at that point).
I genuinely don’t get what’s happened to the quality of the writing. RTD is really pushing the ‘fantasy/ magic’ element and just doesn’t feel the need to justify or ground anything in sci-fi anymore. He had limits before, and it made his ideas more creative. Now everything is just plain unexplainable and so far fetched that it trips itself up. He’s doing this for the sake of it, not because it’s a good idea
Rtd watched star trac discovery and became a huge fan of it. Mind you its his only star trek experience to. He said in interviews that he wants to make the show more like discovery
I think I just witnessed a fair and balanced critique of this episode. I had lost hope that this was a possibility within Doctor who. Didn’t necessary 100% agree with you but your points were fair.
@@aoinatafanboy84 Idk if Stephen King is a fan of Doctor Who, but I think highlighting a lesser-known author as apposed to a massive one, would be better tbh
Considering what Rob Shearman did with The Holy Terror, The Chimes of Midnight and Scherzo, I would love to see him write a story in the more horror/folklore side for the main show
Great review. Agree that this was enjoyable but also annoying for it's many unanswered and seemingly contradictory ideas. Also, this should have been a two parter. If only to flesh out the supporting characters stories, let alone resolving the irritating loose threads. Overall there is enough quality in the show, whether acting, directing, script or whatever to keep me hooked, but could do better.
your rant consists only of questions about the plot, and you claim that the narrative is half baked. Do you believe that a writer needs to explain everything for a story to be "finished"?
I could write many paragraphs on my criticism, but since you don't seem to have understood my point from the video is that having unanswered questions can and has been done well, such as in Big O and The Prisoner, but when you build your narrative, and it falls apart when questions are asked and the audience must make numerous justifications just for it to stay afloat, it is bad writing. The connections of the fairy circle, the woman, Mad-Jack as an entity/myth, and Roger do not come together, and you should not say "well its unanswered by design, so it's okay" when the audience has to put so much effort into untangling so much of a 45min program. It would be different if say, the point of the woman is that there is no solid answer, but that isn't communicated in the story either, so all you are left with from a narrative perspective is no justification for why anything happened other than 1. The fairy circle was broken and 2. Roger is bad. The episode doesn't explore the fairy circle any more than 'perhaps it has something to do with a perception filter', the phrase mad jack does nothing to connect Roger and the fairy circle, and roger was a threat before the circle was broken. The woman is given little connection to the circle beyond another mention of a perception filter, and in old-ruby inhabiting the woman's body at the end, not only is the 73 yards rule broken, she appears before the circle is even broken with no answer as to how breaking the fairy circle could have started any of it, where the doctor went or what took him, and why any of it mattered beyond giving ruby a good emotional arc that is wiped by the end of the episode. The episode may be entertaining and interesting, but as a piece of storytelling it falls apart under scrutiny, meaning either the unanswered questions have an answer or many answers that were not sufficiently communicated for us to interoperate, or Russel has thrown his hands up and decided we should make it up so he can move on to the next script, both are elements that I think in your own word, leaves the story not "Finished" Russel also wrote Midnight, where the unanswered questions such as "What is the monster?" and "What was the woman's name" are meaningful. The monster is left up to our imagination, because the story and emotions don't rely upon the monster's visage, its non-appearance making the fear rise as you interoperate it as scary as you want, whereas in this story a large emphasis is put on the woman, literally being a large part of rubys life, And in Midnight, we aren't told the stewardess's name because it adds to the emotions and theme of the episode, 73 yards does not seem to have this quality in it's story, and I hope the longer length allowed in the upcoming novelization, will leave some of the story unanswered, but have meaning behind leaving them so, if you were satisfied by it then I'm very glad, but keeping my eye as critical as possible, this was a major misstep from what could have been my fav episode of the season.
Again, you seem to be conflating plot and story. The story in the episode was about Ruby and her relationship with herself, her missing parents, and her fear of abandonment. The plot is open to interpretation. If you don't like things being left open, that's fine, but you can't call it bad storytelling or lazy writing just because it's not your cup of tea.
If "The story in the episode was about Ruby and her relationship with herself, her missing parents, and her fear of abandonment." Which is an interesting idea, there needs to be a sufficient vessel for that, spending 15min of the episode on a welsh cliff and pub add nothing to that idea, and taking more of the episode to take down a politician with a hard on for nukes may give a good focus to Ruby as a driving force, but does little to explore the deeper elements of her character you describe. If you want to explore Ruby, focusing on all these other elements and leaving them this open not only does a disservice to Ruby's story, but leaves the episode unfocused, as once again, the fairy circle, mad jack and roger do little to relate to each other or Ruby, if the focus was only on the woman then the focus on ruby would work and still be a quite interesting story, with an emotional element that isnt spelled out, but interpretable and interesting, but the episode as it stands is too stretched between ideas and underdeveloped on even how the woman represents ruby's issues. If you ask why the woman is there in the first place, and how she connects to anything else happening in the story apart from Ruby and her issues, such as how she relates to the fairy circle beyond she appears when it is broken, yet somehow appears before it is destroyed by the end, it feels like two different underdeveloped episodes smushed together.
Ruby stops the nukes by getting sperated from the Doc when he steps on the circle and thus she spends the future years waiting from the right time to pounce at 73 yards and as such stopping nukes and the end of the world. Once this is done she then goes back in time and stops the Doc from stepping on the circle in the first place thus invalidating the whole prevention of Nuke from the sky thing meaning now we got nukes from the sky again. Pretty lazy writting if you ask me, ironicly still the best episode from this new Dr series and yes the best episode dosn't even feature Ncuti Gatwa, outside of a min or 2 at the start and end, this says a lot about what a poor choice of Dr we have.
Nope. I'm not with you. Done watching at 0:48, you stated your opinion clear enough, appreciated that. This was the best of the season so far, Davies actually outdid Moff, & I liked Boom & believe Moff's the best Who writer. Top 3 Davies ep even with faults. Millie won me this ep. She's very good. Direction & Production Aces. I think time may make you reconsider. Thumbs up for trying & not saying "woke" in the 48 seconds I watched.
Finally someone addressing the reduced number of episodes this season! I do believe 73 yards should have been a two-parter and should have happened further along the season so the audience could connect with Ruby better (and that's why The Curse of Clyde Langer worked better - the audience knew Clyde at that point).
I genuinely don’t get what’s happened to the quality of the writing. RTD is really pushing the ‘fantasy/ magic’ element and just doesn’t feel the need to justify or ground anything in sci-fi anymore. He had limits before, and it made his ideas more creative. Now everything is just plain unexplainable and so far fetched that it trips itself up. He’s doing this for the sake of it, not because it’s a good idea
Rtd watched star trac discovery and became a huge fan of it. Mind you its his only star trek experience to. He said in interviews that he wants to make the show more like discovery
Oh dear.......
Wtf u are talking about??
I think I just witnessed a fair and balanced critique of this episode. I had lost hope that this was a possibility within Doctor who.
Didn’t necessary 100% agree with you but your points were fair.
I feel like if this was written by someone like Robert Shearman would have given the political stuff some weight and the folklore stuff more focus
or Stephen King for example?
@@aoinatafanboy84 Idk if Stephen King is a fan of Doctor Who, but I think highlighting a lesser-known author as apposed to a massive one, would be better tbh
Considering what Rob Shearman did with The Holy Terror, The Chimes of Midnight and Scherzo, I would love to see him write a story in the more horror/folklore side for the main show
Great review. Agree that this was enjoyable but also annoying for it's many unanswered and seemingly contradictory ideas. Also, this should have been a two parter. If only to flesh out the supporting characters stories, let alone resolving the irritating loose threads. Overall there is enough quality in the show, whether acting, directing, script or whatever to keep me hooked, but could do better.
your rant consists only of questions about the plot, and you claim that the narrative is half baked. Do you believe that a writer needs to explain everything for a story to be "finished"?
I could write many paragraphs on my criticism, but since you don't seem to have understood my point from the video is that having unanswered questions can and has been done well, such as in Big O and The Prisoner, but when you build your narrative, and it falls apart when questions are asked and the audience must make numerous justifications just for it to stay afloat, it is bad writing.
The connections of the fairy circle, the woman, Mad-Jack as an entity/myth, and Roger do not come together, and you should not say "well its unanswered by design, so it's okay" when the audience has to put so much effort into untangling so much of a 45min program. It would be different if say, the point of the woman is that there is no solid answer, but that isn't communicated in the story either, so all you are left with from a narrative perspective is no justification for why anything happened other than 1. The fairy circle was broken and 2. Roger is bad.
The episode doesn't explore the fairy circle any more than 'perhaps it has something to do with a perception filter', the phrase mad jack does nothing to connect Roger and the fairy circle, and roger was a threat before the circle was broken. The woman is given little connection to the circle beyond another mention of a perception filter, and in old-ruby inhabiting the woman's body at the end, not only is the 73 yards rule broken, she appears before the circle is even broken with no answer as to how breaking the fairy circle could have started any of it, where the doctor went or what took him, and why any of it mattered beyond giving ruby a good emotional arc that is wiped by the end of the episode. The episode may be entertaining and interesting, but as a piece of storytelling it falls apart under scrutiny, meaning either the unanswered questions have an answer or many answers that were not sufficiently communicated for us to interoperate, or Russel has thrown his hands up and decided we should make it up so he can move on to the next script, both are elements that I think in your own word, leaves the story not "Finished"
Russel also wrote Midnight, where the unanswered questions such as "What is the monster?" and "What was the woman's name" are meaningful. The monster is left up to our imagination, because the story and emotions don't rely upon the monster's visage, its non-appearance making the fear rise as you interoperate it as scary as you want, whereas in this story a large emphasis is put on the woman, literally being a large part of rubys life, And in Midnight, we aren't told the stewardess's name because it adds to the emotions and theme of the episode, 73 yards does not seem to have this quality in it's story, and I hope the longer length allowed in the upcoming novelization, will leave some of the story unanswered, but have meaning behind leaving them so, if you were satisfied by it then I'm very glad, but keeping my eye as critical as possible, this was a major misstep from what could have been my fav episode of the season.
Again, you seem to be conflating plot and story. The story in the episode was about Ruby and her relationship with herself, her missing parents, and her fear of abandonment. The plot is open to interpretation.
If you don't like things being left open, that's fine, but you can't call it bad storytelling or lazy writing just because it's not your cup of tea.
If "The story in the episode was about Ruby and her relationship with herself, her missing parents, and her fear of abandonment." Which is an interesting idea, there needs to be a sufficient vessel for that, spending 15min of the episode on a welsh cliff and pub add nothing to that idea, and taking more of the episode to take down a politician with a hard on for nukes may give a good focus to Ruby as a driving force, but does little to explore the deeper elements of her character you describe.
If you want to explore Ruby, focusing on all these other elements and leaving them this open not only does a disservice to Ruby's story, but leaves the episode unfocused, as once again, the fairy circle, mad jack and roger do little to relate to each other or Ruby, if the focus was only on the woman then the focus on ruby would work and still be a quite interesting story, with an emotional element that isnt spelled out, but interpretable and interesting, but the episode as it stands is too stretched between ideas and underdeveloped on even how the woman represents ruby's issues.
If you ask why the woman is there in the first place, and how she connects to anything else happening in the story apart from Ruby and her issues, such as how she relates to the fairy circle beyond she appears when it is broken, yet somehow appears before it is destroyed by the end, it feels like two different underdeveloped episodes smushed together.
Ruby stops the nukes by getting sperated from the Doc when he steps on the circle and thus she spends the future years waiting from the right time to pounce at 73 yards and as such stopping nukes and the end of the world. Once this is done she then goes back in time and stops the Doc from stepping on the circle in the first place thus invalidating the whole prevention of Nuke from the sky thing meaning now we got nukes from the sky again. Pretty lazy writting if you ask me, ironicly still the best episode from this new Dr series and yes the best episode dosn't even feature Ncuti Gatwa, outside of a min or 2 at the start and end, this says a lot about what a poor choice of Dr we have.
Nope. I'm not with you. Done watching at 0:48, you stated your opinion clear enough, appreciated that. This was the best of the season so far, Davies actually outdid Moff, & I liked Boom & believe Moff's the best Who writer. Top 3 Davies ep even with faults. Millie won me this ep. She's very good. Direction & Production Aces. I think time may make you reconsider. Thumbs up for trying & not saying "woke" in the 48 seconds I watched.