I had to vote poor, I don't think it was quite right as an episode.

Following the structure of the series maybe there will be some sort of continuation in the next episode. Also Gattis has said that he will write a sequel to this episode so maybe it will be resolved in a later series (in some way). Having said that, the generally unenthusiastic audience reaction might lead to it being brushed over with no sequel.

Yeah, another ridiculous notion that made no sense. It's fair enough if you're dealing with some kind of strange alien technology or psychic force but, that's not what was presented. Apparently it is just an accumulation of dead skin and mucous given form by a chemical reaction stimulated by the human brain. The material has no photo-receptors, nothing that could generate or manipulate a wi-fi signal, no computer to digitise the data into something the monitors would be able to interpret.

Just sheer unadulterated nonsense!

So the ordinary offices and stairwells of a tall, 20th century London building were better looking than the art department's creative designs of the orbiting spacecraft's corridors, doorways, sleeping chambers, space portals that showed the planet below? Spacecraft sets that were actually built.
The Doomsday sets were more atmospheric? Sorry, but give me the creepy concept of dark, claustrophobic space corridors over ordinary 9 to 5 work offices any day of the week. They were superbly lit and the dutch-angles gave the episode a distinctly disorientation feel to most of the purposely built sets.

And what is this sexual obsession you have with the drama, always making bizarre and tenuous connections to it?

Next time Moffat don't let Gatiss submit three quarters finished scripts and then have them filmed.

Or was the actual ending shown during the children in need wrap up show on Sunday as a bonus and I missed it ?

You'd think the format you outline here would make the show varied and eclectic but it actually doesn't. Theoretically it should, but in fact the format is so formulaic that the setting doesn't make a jot of difference. The 'science' element of the fiction isn't taken seriously and neither is the historical element so it hardly matters if it is futuristic, contemporary or historical. The show feels exactly the same in any instance. The people behave exactly the same. The monsters will be exactly the same. There will be the same lame alien invasions.

Neither does the theme matter because every episode will be leavened to the usual mix of ingredients: bit of banter, serious bit, running bit, poignant bit, banter, and so on. The end result often being that NONE of them have much effect because all the ingredients are being processed into a sloppy mess. 'The Girl Who Lived' was absolutely lousy with this.

There's no tone to an episode of Doctor Who anymore. Rather, there's no specific tone. Every episode is the Doctor Who recipe, the formula.

I recently posted in another thread about the contrast between how it is now and how it was originally in the Hartnell era. One week it would be a historical comedy like 'The Mythmakers' (and by comedy I don't mean an episode with a few more jokes than usual; I mean written like a sitcom, structured like a comedy. Designed not to be taken seriously as drama), then on to a Dalek epic with dramatic character deaths. Then an almost scholarly historical about the Huguenot massacre in Paris in the 16th century. Each story had a tone and feel of its own. The setting was explored and was central to the story, it wasn't just a picturesque backdrop for another alien invasion that is the same as the one the previous week.

Doctor Who feels like Doctor Who every single week. They attempted a 'found footage' episode... and it just felt like Doctor Who! It may as well have just been presented in the normal format. The bold structural idea was just pounded into shape to fit.

Although the writers (and Moffat) always get blamed for this, I actually think it has a lot to do with the directors, who seem to always get a free pass, maybe because most people don't really think or care about that element of production. A lot of them seem to come in and do it by numbers. I've heard very few people talk about the direction of this latest episode for example, when really a large part of it failing was to do with them not really putting over the 'found footage' idea very strongly.

I've said it before: the reason an episode like 'Blink' felt so exciting was partly because it didn't feel like Doctor Who! It stood out. It was new ground for the show. The same with an episode like 'Midnight'.

I don't think most of the episodes are bad, they're just repetitive, and, after nearly ten years, becoming hackneyed. That's not the fault of the creators per se, they maintain a pretty even keel, it's just a consequence of time and familiarity. I feel like they need to be a bit bolder, to shake some of the cobwebs off the format. And that goes deeper than a formal stylistic concept like making a 'found footage' episode if that episode is going to just end up feeling like any other episode. They need to let the story be what it is going to be: not leaven it if it's serious or dramatize it if its essentially comedic. Forget that pie chart of ingredients the writers and directors seem to be saddled with. Doing that will get bigger audience responses for good and bad from week to week... but the alternative is the audience slowly becoming overly familiar with and bored of the show.

Why can't they have a pure historical? Why does there have to be a 'monster' every single week, whether the concept calls for one or not? They need to start relooking at episodes from the ground up. Stop trying to make that perfect Doctor Who episode and instead try and realize the concepts that are central to the individual stories better. That is what I would be telling the writers coming onto the show. We are hiring you to utilize your talents. Write your story and we will give you the freedom, within limits (obviously they can't contradict ongoing storylines, portray characters out of character and so on) to do it. There's not a gag quota. It doesn't have to be this pace. It doesn't have to have this, this and this.

Well, Tom, that's the most sensible post I've read all year. Well reasoned, well written, calm and full of sentiments that I totally agree with. Have you considered applying for Moffat's job?

It was just dull.
We just had a 'base under siege' episode already this series, and this one added very little to formula, and we all know the Doctor will survive, so my Peril-o-meter wasn't giving high enough readings to sustain interest. It was just boring. Monsters you can just tip-toe away from? Yawn.
I turned to my co-viewer at the end and said "That was a waste of time, wasn't it?" and they sighed in agreement.

sorry but poor episode for me-sleep turnng into monsters? sorry but quite silly and even thoughi dont like clara if this is how she dies it will be a real cop out

I think you certainly make some valid points here and often it does feel like there are several elements that are regularly present to varying degrees which can create a sense of common tone rather than shifting tone from episode to episode. Also the point about how Who gives the opportunity to twist with the "rules" but is probably not used as much as it could be, or to as much extent anyway, is probably fair. This puts me in mind of the way the 60s show The Prisoner would subvert the conventions (such as the Western episode).

Having said that, in my opinion, your claims are not as true as you suggest. There is still often some variation among the episodes in tone, structure, nature of dialogue, action to dialogue balance, atmosphere, or other aspects. For instance, in the last series there was a noticeable shift from Robot of Sherwood to Listen, and this series from The Woman Who Lived to The Zygon Invasion. Certainly they could have contrasted to a greater extent and there could be more variation across the episodes overall but I think those are examples where much did still vary. While I still think you make good points, I feel you are simplifying things (perhaps to emphasize the argument) and maybe even displaying some confirmation bias by focusing on how some aspects are sometimes similar (e.g. having a monster of the week or the odd witty line) while ignoring the other dissimilar details that are nonetheless present.

Even so, I would like to see the show take more risks and to subvert things to a greater extent which is ultimately what I mostly take from your post. This is not because I am not enjoying it because in fact I am enjoying this series to a great extent. I just think the show has the potential to really mix it up. The obvious question, however, would be whether this would negatively impact the popularity of the show. I do get a sense that they deliberately want to make the show feel familiar, to some level, so that the audience stays connected.

Of course there's always the possibilty that some yet-to-be-revealed explanation will satisfy those who weren't willing to suspend disbelief for that bit of nonsense.

I've really enjoyed S9, except for this episode which to me was a bit of clunker.

Monsters made out of sleep dust was a leap into the imagination too far for me, the other characters (apart from Rassmussen) dull, and the story fairly boring as well. Interesting ending I admit

The found footage style was giving me a headache too!

I'm so glad homophobia is alive and well on this forum. iDIOT

Really conflicted over this episode. I'm a big fan of Gatiss the man; his writing, I don't always love it. (But 'The Crimson Horror' is one of my top 5 favourite nu-Who episodes.)

I think if it was clearly aimed at younger viewers, I could accept it more - but my 10 year old boy didn't like it at all, I can't remember the last time he showed such distaste for an episode.

We've only watched it once, maybe my position will solidify after a 2nd go.

I know that working out that all the recordings were being done by specks of dust was a clue that the sandmen were conspiring to make a horror film, but it was just such a ridiculous reveal that it had me rolling my eyes instead of thinking "ooh, intriguing!"

I just about managed it - I voted it was "average" and kind of quite liked it for what it was - i.e. The final reveal was fun and it was at least an interesting take on the found footage idea.

But sleepy dust? Individual specks of dust that have evolved to have video recording and wireless data transfer capabilities? It really pushed me to the limits which, given that it's Doctor Who we're talking about, is really saying something.


I think it interesting that a massive drop in viewer numbers happened at the 15 minute mark - coinciding with the Doctor revealing it was sleep dust. I was groaning myself (praying the Doctor would later be revealed as completely wrong).


And that's another reason for viewer drop-out, I think. They didn't hang around to see what the clever twist was going to be - they didn't have the patience to put up with the style.

I've seen plenty of found footage films and can put up with it, and I did like the conceit of the episode. But loads of people just get quickly irritated by shaky cams etc.

It's a pity the monster was founded on such a nonsense idea, because the general idea was a good one (the monsters needed their blipverts to be seen by as many as possible so manipulated the rescue crew into being actors in a movie). I didn't dislike it as much as many people, but I can see why it is getting flak.

I didn't quite get that either. It seemed like the transmission of the triggering signal took a few seconds. He told us it was going to happen and then it happened. So, if the signal was that easy to transmit he could have just put it at the start of the video and not bothered to film anything else at all!

I thought it was more like hypnosis and one blip wouldn't be enough. So he needed to maintain attention with the story so that people would view the several blips that were required. I am far from sure about that but thought that was it. Also didn't the signal flicker several times during the episode? Which ties in with that notion.

I suppose they thought a full video would get more views than a short clip. Or maybe the signal needed to be repeated to guarantee success, or something. So I'm fine with that.

The main issues for me were:
Evolved sleep dust daft in concept.

Didn't understand all the business about people spending lots of time in pods. The whole idea of the pods was that you spend about five minutes a month in them and the rest of the time awake and not in pods. Did the dust digest people in 5 minutes in pods or just generally as people went around working without sleep?

Specks of dust filming things daft.

As drama it was a bit of a fail as none of the characters were developed. Just interchangeable soldiers. There was something of an attempt with Chopra and the Grunt's journey, but wasn't done well enough and Chopra died anyway. I can kind of forgive it because it was in the style of a "tales of the unexpected" where the creepy idea is king, and the characters are just there to service the scares. But still.

Clara was infected and presumably on the path to dust (?). Is the loose end going to be tied up next week? i.e. explicitly mentioned or part of Face The Raven? If not then it's a bit bad to just leave it as "...and we can assume the Doctor fixed Clara once they got in the Tardis". Though, of course, the very nature of the episode precluded having the Doctor find a fix for Clara.

Basically, to keep the idea of the episode working (the sandmen were making a movie), Gatiss ended up with a load of loose ends or just downright nonsense.

The occasional episode distinguishes itself from the pack of course, but for a show with such an ostensibly broad concept it happens very little. Yes, I was generalizing a little to make a broad point... but you didn't have many examples to hand to show a break in the pattern :P

'Listen' is exactly the sort of example I want to see. That was very unique as an episode of Doctor Who in that it tried to get the 'scares', the horror elements through suspense, rather than visual horror ('monsters') or overt peril. The only Doctor Who story I can think of to do this before is 'Fury From the Deep', way back in the Troughton era. That's what I want: a break away from the Doctor Who formula, to not feel quite so 'comfortable' and overly-familiar watching Doctor Who.

The Zygon story on the other hand felt very much like Doctor Who by numbers. It had all the ingredients. It felt the need to lighten the tone by having a scene with the Doctor 'poncing about' getting on a plane. What elements did it have that couldn't be called Doctor who tropes? It stood out a little against 'The Woman Who Lived' only because the latter was one of the most egregious examples of the Doctor Who formula I talked about.

Yes, again, you make good points. I think we will have to agree to disagree regarding the Zygon stuff, but otherwise I think we are on the same page. You are quite right that I didn't actually have lots of examples to contradict you which is in itself revealing. I also completely agree that the show has the possibility for much more variation and creative leaps. I guess we will see how it develops but I do suspect that much of the reason is a desire to not alienate the casual/mainstream audience. Which is a reasonable desire when you are running an expensive show that has it's ratings continually scrutinized. As a fan, I nonetheless do agree with you though, in that pushing the format could make it even better.

Okay, I'll bite...

I didn't even see your post the first time (in spite of its jarring formatting) but the good sense of other posters made me notice, and simply made me wonder...what the hell are you on about?

I don't think I've seen more than two references to the transgender (read, transgender...not gay. Pay attention, you might just learn something) visibility in this episode, and that's astounding. Nothing good to say about it, nothing bad to say about it...because ultimately it was a small part of the episode, it's accepted 'as is' without being a big deal, and people clearly have more sense than you.

Granted the episode had a mixed reception (if being generous), but if this is the sort of thing you get caught up on you really need to do some rethinking.

To be fair I didn't watch all of it, but the bit I did watch was pretty poor. The rest of the series has been great so far.

Not scary, not interesting, just filler.

I must be terribly innocent (bit hard that at 67) but I never noticed any such references. Why do people get hung up on such things? My husband didn't notice either

It really is, it surprises me that so many of the audience can go along with it, but were all different, but for me it was beyond the pale.

People will say its DW and yes DW is out there but that doesn't mean it can do any ludicrous idea and hand wave and we just got to except it because hey its DW, like the moon egg like magic trees appearing/disappearing and not having massive consequences the sleep dust creatures were an insult to the human brain.

What worries me is that if people go along with these concepts then it just encourages the writers to continue to come up with these absurd ideas that they can hand wave away as no one will question it because hey its DW you just have to go with it, well no I don't go with the idea of sleep dust that can record high quality video and send it, and if people do then that's quite worrying for the show going forward.

It creates a disconnect because I can't buy into a world that has no consequences, and ideas that go so far over the line that no amount of suspending disbelief can go along with it. Its just pure cobblers and will force me to lose interest in the show despite wanting to enjoy it.

worst episode ever made