February (and December/January) Round-Up Plus Pathfinder Humble Bundle

So it's been an interesting couple of months. A number of things, particularly family health issues, have meant that I've completed a lot less writing than I intended to, and I've fallen considerably behind schedule on getting caught up on all the reviews I need to do. However, the situation is improving and the frequency of reviews should improve along with it!

Since my last round-up, Doctor Who Series 9 came to an end with the amazing “Heaven Sent” and not-so-amazing “Hell Bent”. Then, just a couple weeks later, there was the 2015 Christmas special, “The Husbands of River Song”. During that time, I also wrote a review looking back on the entirety of Series 9. In that, I made mention of a planned retrospective on Clara as a companion and said to expect it in early January. Obviously, that hasn't happened yet, but I still intend to write it, and hope to have it up in the next week or so—definitely before the end of March. I'm also looking to get back to my Series 8 reviews by late March or early April.

In January, news came that Steven Moffat will be leaving Doctor Who after Series 10. In the wake of that news, there has been a lot of speculation on whether Peter Capaldi will be leaving as well and who might replace him. So far, however, there has been no actual announcement of his departure and I, personally, hope he sticks around for another year or two. Of course, we'll have to wait and see, but just because then-current David Tennant left when Russell T Davies left doesn't mean Peter Capaldi has to leave with Moffat.

Also in January, for a bit of fun, I posted this little 60's gem.

On New Year's Day, the new Sherlock special, The Abominable Bride, aired. I haven't reviewed it yet. I will though.

On the roleplaying side of things, since my last round-up, I've written reviews of We Be Goblins Free!, Andoran, Birthplace of Freedom, Familiar Folio, Occult Realms, Lost Treasures, and Ranged Tactics Toolbox. I also looked at the hardcover Pathfinder Unchained and completed the remaining instalments of the Iron Gods Adventure Path: Valley of the Brain Collectors, Palace of Fallen Stars, and The Divinity Drive. Be sure to check out any you haven't read. Coming up next will be Melee Tactics Toolbox and the Iron Gods Player's Guide.

In other Pathfinder news, until March 9, you can purchase a ton of Pathfinder books (including the Core Rulebook) through Humble Bundle. Over $350 worth of books are available for...whatever you want to pay. Some require a minimum amount to unlock, but as little as $25 will get you them all. They are all PDF copies of the books plus a physical copy of the Beginner Box (if you unlock it; postage not included). It's an absolutely amazing deal, and proceeds go to charity (Humble Bundle even gives you the option to choose which charity). They have apparently raised over $500 000 so far. A small warning: This deal has apparently been more popular than expected, resulting in Paizo's site being overwhelmed by extra traffic. Downloading your purchases might be a bit slow, but worth the wait.

Here's to a great March!

Doctor Who - The Husbands of River Song

When I write my reviews for this site, I don't include numerical marks of any kind. I don't give something 4 stars or something else a score of 9 out of 10. However, when I post links to my reviews on other sites that include such markings, I will often grudgingly apply one. But the truth is, I prefer not to give marks, so that's why you don't see them in the reviews themselves.

This is for a couple simple reasons. Primarily, it's because I find that a simple number doesn't really tell a lot. There's far more nuance to anything than a single score could ever provide. Not only that, different people assign different meanings to scores. One just has to look at the various review threads on Gallifrey Base to see this. One person can call a particular episode terrible and still give it a score of 6 out of 10, while the next person will offer all kinds of praise and give exactly the same score.

But even if everyone were to agree on how good any particular score is, there's still a lot not conveyed by it. If “5 out of 10” means mediocre, does it mean that the whole thing is mediocre or that it's mostly really good but let down by some major part being poor? Perhaps it's the reverse of that, mostly bad but with a major redeeming feature? Or is it all over the place and just sort of averages out to 5? Since all these things need to be explained anyway, I feel it's just better to go ahead and explain them and not worry about assigning a number to go with them.

I've often commented that Steven Moffat's Doctor Who stories can be a mix of brilliance and annoyance, and “The Husbands of River Song” is a definite example of this, and one for which a numerical score would definitely not convey any indication of how good or bad it is. It's definitely an entertaining episode, which is ultimately its main objective and thus is a success. It has some funny moments, some touching moments, and great performances from its two leads. But it also has some terribly unfunny jokes, a paper-thin plot, poor characterisation, and some rather poor performances from several of the guest stars. It also manages to make you both love and hate River Song at the same time—which may, I admit, be intentional. It all makes for a bit of a confounding episode.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

A Look Back at Doctor Who Series 9

Since I started writing Doctor Who reviews in mid-series 6, I have generally only reviewed individual episodes. While, within those reviews, I might comment on the overall direction of the series (and particularly on the resolution in my review of a series finale), I haven't previously reviewed an entire series as a whole. I generally haven't felt the need to. However, this year, during Series 9, I noticed an unusual thing happening: I was rating individual episodes quite highly, yet my feelings for the entire series were much lower, and they seemed to sink lower as the series went on, despite the fact that my opinions of the individual episodes were often getting higher. While this isn't entirely unprecedented, it seemed to be a much greater dichotomy than usual this year, and so I began to think that I should write a follow-up review after the series finale that looks back on the entire series. This is that review.

My main issue with Series 9 is the series arc story, which is, to say the least, poor and unconvincing. Series arcs are an interesting phenomenon, a product of modern television storytelling that old, “classic” Doctor Who didn't have to deal with. In those days, seasons of any show on television just sort of ended. They didn't make a big deal of the conclusion. Similarly, there wasn't a continuing story arc joining multiple episodes (or, in Doctor Who's case, serials) together. Each story was distinct and separate from what came before and the only continuity was character continuity (and even characters didn't do much developing from one story to the next).

Doctor Who experimented with a couple of arcs back in the day. There was “The Key to Time” arc of Season 16 and “The Trial of a Timelord” for season 23. Occasionally, a season might have a linking theme, such as entropy in Season 18, or a couple stories in a row might be linked together in some way, such as the Black Guardian trilogy in Season 20. But on the whole, each story was separate and contained, and the final story of a season wasn't treated any differently than the stories that came before it.

It was in the 90s, while Doctor Who was off the air, that this started to change and story arcs that continued over multiple episodes became more common. Babylon 5 was at the forefront of this change, presenting a show that had a continuing story that went from its first to last episode over five years. Other science fiction and fantasy shows began to follow Babylon 5's lead. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, The X-Files, Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, and others began introducing ongoing story arcs, some that lasted over multiple years, others that would run a single season before concluding and allowing for a new arc to start the following season. By the time Doctor Who returned to television full-time in 2005, story arcs had become the norm for much of television, beyond just science fiction and fantasy programmes. Doctor Who really had little choice but to take part.

I don't want to make it sound as if I think this is, in any way, a bad thing. I actually think it's been a change for the better in television. Although they have the downside of making it more of an issue to miss an episode, story arcs provide more of a reward for the viewers. They give a direction to the show and to the characters, and allow viewers to travel with the characters through a developing world, one where the events of one episode impact the episodes that come after it, and there's a greater sense of accomplishment when the end of the arc is reached. That said, story arcs were something new for Doctor Who, and I'm not sure the show has ever fully acclimated to the format.

SPOILERS FOR EVERYTHING UP TO AND INCLUDING “HELL BENT” FOLLOW

Doctor Who - Hell Bent

To read my reviews of the two episodes leading into this one, click on the following links: “Face the Raven” and “Heaven Sent”.

Doctor Who finales these days tend to follow a certain pattern: There's a universal threat, a reunion of various characters, the resolution of some sort of pre-ordained event in time, and often the destruction of the universe itself (although last year's “Death in Heaven” dropped the destruction of the universe part). I've commented before (particularly in my review of “The Name of the Doctor”) that there is a perceived need to make every series finale bigger than the one before, as if only bigger can be better. For once, “Hell Bent” moves away from that pattern a little. Oh, most of it's still there as backdrop, but it centres in on a far more personal story than typical of Steven Moffat's finales (with “Death in Heaven” again being something of an exception). Despite its massive backdrop, it doesn't feel bigger. It feels smaller. And that's a good thing. Unfortunately, there are still many things to take issue with in the episode.

Like so many of Steven Moffat's stories (especially finales), “Hell Bent” is a mixture of brilliance and annoyance. There are wonderful ideas and individual moments that make me want to clap or cry out in joy. But there are also moments that make me groan. And unfortunately, like so many finales of recent years, all the various wonderful ideas and moments don't hold together particularly well when examined at anything beyond a surface level. As a whole, “Hell Bent” is rather underwhelming—and that's a shame because there are truly some amazing moments, particularly towards the end, where the story almost, but not quite, redeems itself (and in the eyes of many people, including IO9's Charlie Jane Anders, does redeem itself). It's a shame, too, because the two episodes leading into it, especially “Heaven Sent”, are such good episodes.

“Hell Bent” does get better on subsequent viewings, something I've found also tends to be the case with finales written by Steven Moffat. Perhaps it's because I know to expect the parts I don't particularly like and can ignore them more easily. A while back, I wrote about the ways people react to spoilers. I think, for me, Steven Moffat's finales are stories where I should just let myself be spoiled in advance, despite my general preference to avoid spoilers. Nevertheless, I will provide the appropriate spoiler warnings here.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

Doctor Who - Heaven Sent

It's rather remarkable that, after 52 years, Doctor Who still has the capacity to surprise. I've talked before about its ability to change and be numerous different things, but even so, after 52 years, you might think that there wouldn't be much left to do that hasn't already been done. Not so. There's still so much more that is new and surprising. “Heaven Sent” is an example of that.

A couple of weeks ago, Doctor Who did a very experimental episode: “Sleep No More”. It wasn't particularly well-received by the general audience. While I enjoyed it overall, I also acknowledged where it was flawed. In “Heaven Sent”, we get another highly experimental episode, but this one knocks the ball out of the park with what is one of the best Doctor Who episodes in some time. There's very little to criticise about it, which is rare for me and a script penned by Stephen Moffat. Quite simply, “Heaven Sent” is wonderful Doctor Who. It is captivating, atmospheric, thoughtful, and moving—quite the delight!

SPOILERS FOLLOW

Doctor Who - Face the Raven

As the end of Series 9 approaches, it's not surprising that events on Doctor Who are beginning to build towards the finale. The overall direction and theme of the series has not been as clear this year as in other years, but there have been a few hints and they are starting to play out.

“Face the Raven” by Sarah Dollard begins the move towards the finale quite dramatically and even a little shockingly. It starts as a seemingly standard stand-alone adventure for the Doctor and Clara that then turns into something much different. It's a very good episode and very emotional. Unfortunately, it's let down—not by its own faults (mostly) but by the episodes that have come before it. They have failed to effectively bring the series to the point it reaches here. As a result, it's not quite as affecting as it could have been.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

Doctor Who - Sleep No More

I've commented many times before on Doctor Who's ability to do just about any style or genre. It can be something completely different from week to week. Sometimes it sticks to old formulas; other times, it tinkers with something new; still other times it dives head first into the experimental to come up with something completely different and bizarre. I love this aspect of the show, but that doesn't necessarily mean I love every experimental episode. Some try really hard, but don't quite succeed (see “The Rings of Akhaten”, for example).

I will admit that I was expecting “Sleep No More” to be one those ones that fails. This was partly because of the found-footage format, which is a style I'm not fond of. The second was because it's written by Mark Gatiss, whose past contributions to Doctor Who I've generally found to be mediocre at best (although “Cold War” is pretty good) and sometimes downright bad (“Victory of the Daleks”). The combination of the two left me with low expectations for this episode. That was, perhaps, unfairly biased of me—especially considering I ended up enjoying the episode somewhat.

“Sleep No More” is a bold experiment and not the kind of thing Doctor Who should be doing every week. But once in a while, bold experiments are exactly what the show needs. Intriguingly, aspects of “Sleep No More” are actually very formulaic and follow paths seen in the show many times before. But it takes those formulaic aspects and plays around with both the presentation and the viewers' expectations of how they will resolve. The execution isn't perfect and there are many flaws in the story—but oddly, some of those flaws actually help enhance it. “Sleep No More” is an episode that many people will dislike, some of them intensely. It's certainly not an easy episode to digest, or make heads or tails of. However, I suspect it will be an episode that is talked about (for good or bad) for a long time as it defies attempts to categorize and rate it.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

Doctor Who - The Zygon Inversion

Click here to read my review of “The Zygon Invasion”, the first part of this two-part story.

I commented last week that, of all the opening episodes of two-part stories so far this series, “The Zygon Invasion” was the most dependent on its follow-up episode. While this is certainly true, it is interesting that “The Zygon Inversion” is rather different in style. Where “The Zygon Invasion” is a world-spanning thriller with a large cast of characters, military action, and more, “The Zygon Inversion” is a much more personal tale, focusing on just the few key players. This is rather fitting, given the title. It inverts your expectations.

For the most part, it inverts them in a good way, too, for this is a strong story with a powerful message at its core, and, in one scene in particular, Peter Capaldi gives one of the most amazing performances of any Doctor ever. The story is not without its flaws. Indeed, there are quite a lot of them, but its good points are strong enough that those flaws are not very noticeable unless you take the time to analyse what is going on (admittedly, something that I just can't help but do).

SPOILERS FOLLOW

Doctor Who - The Zygon Invasion

Note: Even though the second episode has already aired at the time of posting this review, it was written without seeing that episode. A number of unforeseen factors simply delayed posting it until now.

When I first started this blog in 2011 and first started writing my Doctor Who reviews, I debated with myself how I would handle multi-part stories. Should I review each episode individually, or should I wait until they had all aired and respond to them as a whole? I couldn't quite come up with an answer, but it turned out, I didn't need to—at least, not right away. My first review was of “Let's Kill Hitler” which began the second half of Series 6. There were no multi-episode stories for the remainder of the series. There were none in the entirety of Series 7 either. There were none until “Dark Water”/“Death in Heaven” came along at the end of Series 8. However, at that time, I was on my unplanned hiatus. At the time, as I was still hoping I could somehow get caught up, I figured I would review both episodes together to make my job a little easier. But I didn't get caught up. When Series 9 started, I noted that there were going to be a lot of two-parters, so I had to make a final decision. I decided to review every episode individually.

So far, it's worked out pretty well, I think. The opening parts of the two-part stories (“The Magician's Apprentice” and “Under the Lake”) have stood pretty well on their own, even if not technically complete. However, the latest episode, “The Zygon Invasion”, is considerably more dependent on its second episode, which is still to come. It doesn't stand alone in the way previous first parts this series have. As such, it's somewhat harder to review. That doesn't mean there's nothing I can say about. In fact, I have a lot to say about it. It just means that it comes with the caveat that I could end up reassessing large portions of it once I've seen “The Zygon Inversion”.

All things considered, “The Zygon Invasion” is a gripping story and highly enjoyable. It brings Doctor Who back to modern day Earth and straight into a political thriller. In some ways, the episode feels reminiscent of later Torchwood episodes, and some Russell T Davies-produced Doctor Who. The episode does have a number of flaws, particularly in terms of character development; however, it's a good start to what may turn out to be a great story.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

Doctor Who - The Woman Who Lived

Series 9 of Doctor Who has seen a return to more multi-part stories, opening with two two-part stories and following those with... not exactly a two-part story, but two linked episodes. With the second episode of each pair, I've commented on how they compare to one another, whether the second episode has lived up to the expectations of the first, exceeded them (in the case of “The Witch's Familiar” compared to “The Magician's Apprentice”), or fallen short (in the case of “Before the Flood” compared to “Under the Lake”).

“The Woman Who Lived” by Catherine Tregenna is technically a new story, not the second part of “The Girl Who Died” (despite the “To Be Continued” slapped on the the end of that one). The two episodes have different writers, different settings, and different plots. Even the atmosphere and tone of the two stories are different. But what links them is they both form segments in the life of the one carry-over character (apart from the Doctor himself, of course), the titular Girl Who Died/Woman Who Lived. Much like the entirety of Doctor Who shows us moments in the life of the Doctor, these two episodes show us the life of Ashildr/Lady Me. As such, it's only natural to compare them as the second builds upon the first.

So, the question is, how does “The Woman Who Lived” compare to “The Girl Who Died”? Does it meet expectations? I have to say it more than meets them. It leaves those expectations far behind in the dust. “The Woman Who Lived” is Doctor Who at its best. It's a calm, character-based tale (mostly) free from world-destroying shenanigans. Epic, world-threatening adventure has an important place in Doctor Who, but it's not the only thing and never should be. There need to be introspective stories that slow things down a bit and show us effects and consequences. “The Woman Who Lived” does this and more. With brilliant performances by its two leads, it mixes a compelling morality tale with emotion and a light dose of comedy (and much more successful humour than that attempted in “The Girl Who Died”).

SPOILERS FOLLOW

Doctor Who - The Girl Who Died

One of Doctor Who's strengths has always been its ability to cover many different styles. It can be terrifying one episode, hilarious the next, and serious drama the next. Sometimes, it's several of those at once. “The Girl Who Died” by Jamie Mathieson and Steven Moffat is one of those stories that tries to be several things at once. On the surface, it's a light-hearted romp, very much in the vein of last year's “Robot of Sherwood”. It's set in a historical time period that pays only lip-service to actual history and throws in some comical aliens for the Doctor and friends to fight. However, there is also an underlying more serious edge to the story dealing with the consequences of difficult decisions, while also mixing in themes of the power of storytelling.

Mixing humour and seriousness is something that Doctor Who can do well, but unfortunately, it falls a bit flat here. “The Girl Who Died” is not a bad story. In fact, it's quite fun to watch, and has some wonderful moments, particularly towards the end. But the switches from slapstick goofiness to serious consequences are somewhat jarring, making the overall episode rather uneven. There's some greatness here, but it's struggling to escape from a cage of mediocrity.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

Doctor Who - Before the Flood

Click here to read my review of “Under the Lake”, the first part of this two-part story.

In my review of “The Witch's Familiar”, I commented on how the conclusion of a two-episode story can sometimes exceed and outdo the first, and other times, let you down by not living up to the promise of the first. In the case of “The Witch's Familiar”, it considerably improved on its opening episode. It took the over-ambitious, meandering nature of “The Magician's Apprentice” and gave it focus. Unfortunately, “Before the Flood” is an example of the other kind of concluding episode. It's just not as good as its opening episode. It has a somewhat disappointing villain, fewer great character moments, and a couple of scenes that annoy rather than entertain—one of which is the pre-titles sequence, and that just creates a bad vibe right from the start.

Now, I should make it clear that “Before the Flood” isn't a bad episode. It's actually pretty good. It resolves the storyline in a tight, well-executed manner, the performances from the guest cast continue to be excellent, and while there may be fewer great character moments, there still are some wonderful ones. But despite all the good, it doesn't reach the heights of “Under the Lake” and that's just a little bit disappointing.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

Doctor Who - Under the Lake

Base under siege: This is a time-honoured style of Doctor Who story, set in an isolated location (generally a scientific and/or military base, although other settings can be and have been used), where a relatively small group of characters are fighting for survival against some invading threat. The format has been used (and sometimes overused) many times in Doctor Who's history. Some of the greatest stories have been base-under-siege stories (“The Tenth Planet”, “The Ice Warriors”, “The Ark in Space”, “The Waters of Mars”), as have some of the worst (“Warriors of the Deep”). While the format does have its limits, resulting in some stories being rather similar to others (the many Patrick Troughton base-under-siege stories started to fall a bit into this rut), it can also be surprisingly versatile, making for some very gripping and original tales. It's no wonder Doctor Who has revisited the format many times over the years.

“Under the Lake” by Toby Whithouse is the latest return to this format. For viewers who have picked up on Doctor Who in the last decade, it may at first seem very similar to stories like “The Impossible Planet”/”The Satan Pit” or “42”. The nice thing about “Under the Lake”, though, is that it quickly establishes its own identity, becoming what may be one of the most unique base-under-siege stories in all of Doctor Who. It's a gripping, atmospheric tale with just the right amount of creepiness, and superbly paced, building tension gradually up to its shocking climax. There's a definite “old school” feel to this story, which could easily fit in to the Patrick Troughton or early Tom Baker periods, and this works to its benefit (that's not to say that simply because something is “old school”, it's automatically better; just that, in this particular case, it enhances the story). It's not a flawless story, but it is excellent.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

Doctor Who - The Witch's Familiar

Click here to read my review of “The Magician's Apprentice”, the first part of this two-part story.

It is nice to see a return of multi-part stories, which until “Dark Water”/“Death in Heaven”, we had gone quite some time without. Cliff-hangers are a classic part of Doctor Who. They create anticipation for the next episodes, and the truly good ones can leave you on the edge of your seat for the whole week you have to wait. Of course, they also leave you wondering whether the second episode will live up to the first (assuming you liked the first). Sometimes the conclusion can let you down; it's just not what you hoped it would be. But other times, the conclusion manages to outdo the beginning, taking something that was perhaps mediocre and making it good, or something that was good and making it great.

“The Witch's Familiar” is one of these latter cases. I found a lot of good in “The Magician's Apprentice”, yet as much as I enjoyed it, there were a number of things about it that I was less than happy with (see my review linked above). “The Witch's Familiar”, on the other hand, is a much better episode, and it manages to avoid many of the flaws that plagued the first episode. It's better paced and better focused, without the nostalgic diversions of “The Magician's Apprentice”. As such, it's also a much more accessible episode to newer viewers (assuming they aren't put off by the first episode). While it builds on some of Doctor Who's history, it sticks to the history that is relevant to the story without bombarding viewers with a whole pile of other, unrelated history. And while “The Magician's Apprentice” throws a huge cast of characters at viewers, most of whom are only on screen for a short period of time, “The Witch's Familiar” focuses on a small cast, giving viewers the chance to get to know these characters and to become invested in their stories. In short, “The Witch's Familiar” is a damn good episode.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

Doctor Who - The Magician's Apprentice

First, a quick note: Due to various factors, I've been away for quite some time. But I'm back now! Hooray! The extended absence, however, has meant that I have never finished reviewing Series 8 of Doctor Who. I do intend to finish those reviews, although I don't have a schedule for that at this time. However, I also wanted to respond right away to current episodes, so I'm not going to delay Series 9 reviews while waiting to finish the remaining Series 8 ones. Thus, I'm starting my return straight off with a review of “The Magician's Apprentice”!

I will be doing similarly with Pathfinder and other reviews. More details to come soon.

I've been quite excited for the return of Doctor Who this year. I was very happy with Series 8 overall (something that was probably already apparent from the reviews that I did complete and which I will expand more on when I complete the remaining ones), and I've been hoping to be similarly pleased, or even more pleased, with Series 9. With “The Magician's Apprentice”, I'm not disappointed, though perhaps a little concerned. It's a great first part of a series finale! Except it's not the finale. It's the series opener.

One might wonder what difference that makes. If it's great, it's great. How does its position in the series order affect that? The problem comes from its accessibility to casual and new viewers. The episode throws a lot of things at the viewer very fast and expects the viewer to simply know what they are. Long-time fans of Doctor Who, those who are familiar with its entire long history, will have little problem in this regard—they'll likely even be pleased and excited by many of the references. However, newer viewers are likely to find it confusing. If this were the finale, there would have been a whole season to (hopefully) introduce viewers to the concepts in this episode. As a series opener, on the other hand, it needs to provide a starting-off point for new viewers, and “The Magician's Apprentice” really doesn't do that. Instead, I worry that it will turn potential new viewers away, and that's not really a good thing.

SPOILERS FOLLOW