May 1, 2025 • 33 mins
The Final Cut podcast examines Doctor Who's darker turn with episodes "Lux" and "The Well," exploring how Russell T. Davis blends fantasy elements with traditional sci-fi as part of his second run as showrunner.
• "Lux" successfully blends animation and live action, introducing a trickster villain in Mr. Ringading
• The God of Light represents RTD2's shift toward fantasy over science fiction, creating elemental forces beyond the Doctor's scientific understanding
• Setting "Lux" in 1950s segregated Miami adds historical depth while acknowledging racial dynamics
• "The Well" follows Doctor Who's tradition of base-under-siege narratives, explicitly connecting to RTD's classic "Midnight" episode
• The character of deaf scientist Alice Fenley demonstrates meaningful representation that serves the story
• Both episodes contribute to a larger season arc involving gods invading our universe and Earth's apparent destruction
• Doctor Who's darker themes connect to British sci-fi traditions that differ from American optimistic space exploration narratives
• Viewership appears to be improving with each episode, with "The Well" gaining 400,000 more overnight viewers than "Lux"
Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more Doctor Who analysis and reviews from The Final Cut.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Spotlights fade, the curtains rise, new stories
waiting behind our eyes.
Stories waiting behind our eyes, charlotte and John with the
final say, breaking down thescreens in their own way.
(00:35):
This is the Final Cut, wherethe real reviews ignite.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Hi and welcome back to another episode of Final Cut.
So today we're going to discussthe latest episodes from Doctor
who.
The one is called Lux and theother one is called the Well,
and both of them have a ratherdark tone.
I mean, the Lux introduces usto a kind of evil cartoon
(01:05):
character called Ring-a-Ding,which almost brings thoughts
back into Roger Rabbit when yousaw the recording of it, but an
interesting, slightlydarker-toned story which is the
same as well.
He has a kind of again aslightly evil character, but at
this time an invisible evilcharacter, but this time an
invisible evil character.
(01:26):
So, but I will start talkingabout Lux, I think in this
episode.
So Lux, it blends animation andlive action.
Did you think it worked and howwas that actually?
How effective was that whentelling the story and what was
your view opinion of the episodeas well, I should ask.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Well, hi, charlotte and hi folks Delighted to be
back with you talking aboutDoctor who.
Yeah, I really enjoyed Lux.
I mean, I think, in common witha lot of the critical reception
of this episode, it's regardedas one of the strongest episodes
, certainly of Russell T Davis'ssecond run showrunner what
people are now rathereuphemistically calling R2-D2,
(02:11):
r-t-d2, because it was certainlystrong.
It very much put me in mind alittle bit of who Framed Roger
Rabbit Actually as well, withthe idea of people stepping out
of the cinema frame an woodyallen movie from 1985 called the
purple rose of cairo, in which,um, in the 1930s, a woman goes
(02:33):
to the cinema only for a screenidol or a matinee idol to step
out of the screen and run awaywith her.
So there's there's a sort ofsimilar feel here in Lux.
So I really enjoyed it.
It was strong, it was dark, butit was also fun and light in
terms of the use of cartoons andanimations.
(02:53):
So it was a nice balancebetween the dark and the light,
I felt.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
And yes, and also, what did you think about Lux,
this god of light?
What do you think thatsymbolises?
I mean I was kind of thinking,does it symbolise fame or does
it symbolise power?
I mean I had sort of variousthoughts of that kind of what it
could be.
What was your opinion of it?
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Well, I think there's a danger sometimes of reading
too much into episodes of Doctorwho.
I think it is clear within thedevelopment of the RTD2 Shuti
Gatwa run of episodes thatRussell T Davis is very much
stepping into the idea of Doctorwho, much more as fantasy
(03:40):
rather than science fiction.
So we're starting to get apantheon of gods unfold.
We already met the god of music, we met Sutec, the god of death
, at the end of the finalepisode of season one of the
rebooted season one, and herewe're meeting the god of light.
So it's the idea that there arethese dark forces beyond the
(04:04):
universe, beyond the rationallaws of physics, that are
invading the universe.
So that's how it's justifiedwithin the show that suddenly
the show is lurching towardsfantasy rather than science
fiction and elements of thesupernatural, in this case
literally beyond the universe,beyond the physical laws of the
universe that the Doctorcharacter understands and that
(04:27):
creates fear because it it meansthat the doctor can't
necessarily solve it with hisusual um, uh laws of science.
Instead he has to reach for,maybe, maybe, forms of trickery
and um and deception of the gods.
So, um, this character is LuxImperator, the emperor, or god
(04:48):
of light, and I think it justneeds to be taken at that level
almost.
The idea of elemental forcesAgain interesting connection to
British science fictiontelevision history.
It kind of echoes an old showfrom the early 1980s called
Sapphire and Steel, which wasabout a sort of psychic time
(05:11):
detective agency where you hadthese various elements of the
universe that were battling eachother.
So in the case of Sapphire andSteel they were the good people
fighting other elemental forces.
So in some ways Russell T Davisis drawing upon that idea of
fantasy, allowing a space forelemental forces like light to
(05:33):
battle with us mere mortals.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
I want to go back to Mr Ringading, because he is a
kind of bizarre charismaticvillain, but is he actually in
the style of previous villainand did you find him effective?
I mean, was he, is he?
Is he threatening, is it?
Is it a sort of metaphor forsomething?
And and sometimes I wonder ifit's a Disney like Disney coming
(05:59):
in and their influence?
What was your view of thevillain, mr ringer?
Speaker 2 (06:06):
well, I wouldn't say it's.
It's done in the style of adisney cartoon.
In fact, that might be seen asan insult to disney because, um,
you're showing a cartoon thatturns very dark, so in many ways
it's much more in the style of.
It actually struck me more inthe style of sort of max
fleischer cartoons like Felixthe Cat, for example, which was
an early rival to Disney.
(06:27):
But Disney's influence iscertainly there in terms of the
budget, the ability now to mixlive action with animation and
to do it convincingly.
Doctor who even in the rebootedseries since 2005, where there
was a bigger budget for specialeffects, even then it could
(06:49):
never have attempted to do thissort of, um, mixing of live
action and animation.
Only with the disney resourcesare they, are they able to do it
and it works really well.
Um, I mean, I look, I paidattention to the, to the use of
animation in the context of thelive action, and it was pretty
seamless.
(07:09):
There was no sense of the actorslooking at the wrong place, for
example, that you sometimes getin cheaper variations of that,
and I thought the characterworks very well in terms of
being something that isostensibly light and fun for the
kids but has this much darkerelement to it that, as we you
know, we think, oh, it's just acartoon and then all of a sudden
it's actually really dark.
(07:30):
The cartoon characters in manyways are kind of trickster
figure.
Trickster, you know, the ideaof some sort of impish devil
that comes in and tries tocreate chaos.
So it very much worked, I think, think, within that level, the
idea of the character as atrickster.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
And then I want to go on this pushing boundaries, and
obviously it is physically aboundary where they step out and
meet the fans etc and kind ofstep it out of the frame and
trying to overlist.
But maybe there it is wherethey're actually trapped, where
they can't actually get out.
So how do you think thatelement works, this kind of
(08:11):
different words and trying tokind of almost Truman show, like
being stuck in?
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Yes, yes, I mean, in some ways it's Russell T Davis,
the writer, pushing the idea ofbreaking the frame as far as it
could possibly go within thecontext of Doctor who.
So as soon as you have the ideaof breaking the frame, of
stepping outside of the filminto reality, it's a short
(08:38):
logical step or hop to actuallythink well, hang on, let's break
the frame and have thecharacters from doctor who
actually step out into somethingthat resembles our reality.
Now, when I, when I I watchedthis first of all um, I thought,
I have to confess, my heartsunk a little bit so I thought
(08:59):
maybe this has gone too far,that suddenly you know what was
a an interesting sort of metastory, if you like um set in the
1950s.
Suddenly we're in our worldwith a bunch of of russell t
davis satirical representationof what fans are.
And there's always the danger,with television shows like
(09:20):
doctor who and others, of whatwe call euphemistically jumping
the shark, where it becomes justtoo unreal and therefore it's
impossible to put the fictionback into the bottle and
actually to have some sort ofbelievability to what is.
After all, doctor who is just aseries of tall tales and you've
got to suspend your disbelief inorder to run with it, and could
(09:43):
we ever re-immerse ourselves inthe story again now that we've
actually broken through to theworld of the fans?
However, russell T Daviscleverly takes it back.
So actually it turns out it'sjust to be another level of
deception from a trickstercharacter, mr Ringading, that in
fact they're in a fictionaluniverse, although it still
(10:06):
begged the question why on theTV you had the Doctor who logo
with BBC brand on it.
So how does that work withinthe fiction, within a fiction?
But, however, he did rescue itback.
So it was the idea that in fact, the Doctor, it was just
another level of fiction thatwas preventing the Doctor and
Bel, just another level offiction that was preventing the
doctor and belinda from seeingthe real reality, although at
(10:28):
the very end the fans survived.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
so I suspect that we may not have seen the last of
those fans yeah, yeah, that was,and I think, and I think it was
a really exciting episode,interesting use of animation etc
.
And just to find a questionbefore we maybe move on to where
well is, you know, they set itin the 1950s.
Do you think it was like a boldchoice by also making this
(10:51):
slightly say political orpolitical is the wrong word the
point that this is a segregatedmiami where you know, blacks are
colored, are not allowed intothe cinema, etc.
Do you think that was a kind ofbold step?
How did that affect the overallaction?
(11:11):
Do you?
Speaker 2 (11:11):
think yes, well, um, I like the 1950s settings.
I always like doctor who,historical stories and the idea
of 1950s amer is quite aresonant one because it relates
obviously to the theme of cinemaand breaking out of the frame.
Oddly enough, there were oddsort of paparazzi shots that
(11:36):
appeared a year or so ago whenthis episode was being produced,
and there seemed to be somediscussion that perhaps it was
all going to be about roswelland ufo crashes.
But in fact obviously it wasn't, and it was.
It was set for the most partwithin the confines of a cinema.
So the 1950s historical settingworked well with the context of
(12:00):
cinema, because you know it'sboom time for the cinema.
I also like the resonances tothe fact that nuclear testing
was going on in the cold war andthe idea that the god of light
would be attracted to to thenuclear light.
But as soon as, of course, youdo this and you make that
decision to set it in the 1950sor indeed any historical setting
(12:22):
pre our own contemporary era,you inevitably when you, when
you cast actors of color in thelead roles, you inevitably have
to contend with that, and soactually I felt that that was
handled quite well by russell tdavis, it wasn't sort of put in
your face but it had to beacknowledged because this was a
(12:44):
segregated society and if we'resupposed to suspend disbelief
then we have to be able to toactually um, uh, relate to the
fact and understand thehistorical reality that that
that there were segregation bars.
Um, there's a nice line actuallywithin the the show itself the
(13:05):
episode where Russell T D, wherethe doctor character is being
challenged by Belinda and hesays look, belinda, I you know,
I sometimes let worlds topplethemselves.
So it's the idea that he willnot intervene in terms of the
overt racism that's going on.
Instead he'll just let historytake its course and eventually
(13:27):
that will hopefully resolveitself.
So it was handled quite well.
But it's always going to be anissue actually with historical
stories and I'm glad in someways that New Doctor who is
acknowledging it and isn't justsort of operating on a sort of
colorblind issue, that it isacknowledging the ethnicity of
the lead characters.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Maybe more topical.
I just can't leave this episodewithout mentioning Belinda.
How did you think she performedin this?
What is her role?
Did you feel more of her rolecoming out now and the fact that
she's much more independentthan your previous companions?
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Yeah, yes, if you recall, in our first discussion
about the first episode of thenew season of Doctor who, the
Robot Revolution, I felt thatBelinda was a sort of maybe a
rather pale imitation of theprevious feisty assistant
companion, donna, played byCatherine Tate in the original
(14:31):
Russell T Davis run of episodesback in the noughties.
I still oddly felt that with Luxthat her best moments were more
when she was involved withinthe story rather than
challenging the Doctor, thatsometimes those punches didn't
quite land.
But I have to say and thismaybe leads us nicely into a
(14:53):
segue into the next episode, theWell that in episode three I
thought her performance was muchmore strong and much more
emotionally exciting for theviewer to watch.
I thought it was a muchstronger, more intense
performance.
So it may simply be that thisis a, this is an actress who's
(15:15):
learning as she gets more intothe role, because I do believe
episodes in chronological order,um of transmission, so um.
I felt she was much more strongin the well and and gave an
excellent uh, quite anguishedperformance at times.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
So moving on then to Welles Welles is slightly more
darker.
We almost think of.
It almost shifts us into thelanguage of psychological horror
.
How did you so we kind of feelas if we were sitting on our
edge of a seat?
How did you have success whatdo you think they were with
(15:52):
getting that sort of horror-like, thriller-like feel to the
viewers?
Speaker 2 (15:59):
Well, it's very much.
This episode, though, wellsvery much in a long tradition of
Doctor who of kind of I meanwhat euphemistically might be
called bases under siegenarratives or bottle narratives
where it's all set within mainlya kind of single location, a
(16:20):
space station or an undergroundbase of some sort.
And this goes right the wayback to classic Doctor who.
There were always episodes orstories, you know two or three
part stories that were set inthat kind of bottleneck or base
siege scenario.
So the well is very much withinthat tradition.
(16:41):
Explicitly it gives the nodback to Midnight, an absolute
classic bottle episode, if youlike, from RTD's first season.
As showrunner Now, whether youneeded to make that connection
explicitly, I'm not so sure itseems to me that it's noticeable
(17:06):
from the credits that there aretwo writers on this episode,
russell T Davis, the showrunner,working in collaboration with a
new writer called Sharma AngelWalfall, and it may be, for
example, that she pitched theidea of a story set on a base
with a well, and Russell T Davisthought hang on, that's a bit
like Midnight.
So what we'll do is we'll jointhe two stories together and
(17:28):
therefore preempt any kind offan criticism that they've seen
this sort of bottle type storybefore um.
But nevertheless, the well, thewell was effective, I thought
so how do you think they comparethat?
Speaker 1 (17:40):
if you're comparing the well to the midnight, you
know, um, does it live live upto the same hype, if that's the
way to put it.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Well, it was interesting actually, on X,
formerly known as Twitter,stephen Moffat, one of the
former showrunners of therebooted Doctor who, who
followed Russell T Davis and whoactually has contributed some
episodes to Shuti Gatwa, was run.
Um, he tweeted out on x that,uh, hold on to your horses,
(18:17):
don't you know?
Close all the doors.
Uh, don't talk to anyone online.
This is an absolute stone coldclassic.
Perhaps blinks.
Long rain is over.
Because blink, written bysteven moffat, regarded as one
of the best episodes.
I didn't feel that the welllived up to that hype and I
think that was Stephen Moffatrather generously trying to
(18:40):
boost the viewership for Doctorwho, which struggled a little
bit in terms of overnightratings, at least in the UK.
So it didn't work as well, butit was a strong dark story.
That was probably one of thestrongest episodes of Shitty
Gatwas run, but not, I would say, beating some of the real Stone
(19:05):
Cold classics of an earlier era.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
Yeah, and I wasn't super, not a super fan of this
the unseen sort of nature of thecreature and but sort of and
kind of maybe wonder is this thecreature from within?
Is it?
It's, it's the danger fromwithin that we can't spot.
You know it's, it's thereference to that.
So what do you think it's addto the storytelling?
I, I, I just it didn't landwell with me, but maybe I wasn't
(19:32):
picking up something how didyou find this unseen creature?
Speaker 2 (19:38):
well, the creature um , you know it's a.
This is a sequel to midnightnow in the original um 2008
episode.
Midnight it was very much thethe creature was was unseen.
Essentially it it just invadedhuman hosts and what was
remarkable about that episodewas the way that it used the
(19:59):
idea of the monster of the weekto explore how the real monsters
were actually the human beingsthemselves, because they turn on
each other.
When they realise there's anunseen enemy within this space
shuttle that they're all sort oftrapped in, then they start to
fight with each other and thinkabout jettisoning somebody into
(20:21):
space if they think that youknow falsely, as it turns out
that they're actually the host.
I didn't get so much thatresonance with the well, it was
just more the idea of a creatureon your back and something that
is dark and is unseen, and tothat extent, this was a more
(20:41):
simple exploration of the forcesof darkness compared to
Midnight.
I mean the well, if we thinkabout the title, the well, the
idea of something dark, deep anddangerous, subterranean,
perhaps from the deepestrecesses of our subconscious.
So it's the idea.
It's maybe the sum of all ourfears, the idea that it's an
(21:04):
unseen, unknowing enemy that wecan't see, but only just get a
brief glimpse of uh before it'sgone.
So, uh, it's really playingwith these kind of primal fears.
Um, I had some criticisms thatin fact, um, the, the, the
problem actually was because, um, that kind of psychological
(21:27):
horror works very well with alower budget show, as soon as
you have the big budget ofDisney with those huge big sets,
that somehow that kind ofprimal fear and claustrophobic
horror is diluted by just thesheer size of the set and that
could be a potential criticismof the world.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
It makes me almost think of a film that was very
popular a few years ago calledthe Blair Witch Project, which
was done very much with shakycameras, but the thing of it was
that it was something unseenthat you couldn't quite say.
It may be better if you usethat example.
Moving on, though, to thecharacter Alice Fenley and I was
(22:07):
actually very impressed by herperformance.
I think it was very, very goodand, but I think it was a strong
actress.
I almost thought it was a shamethat she had such a little role
.
I think she was great.
She kind of lightened up inaction a bit, but what do you
think you know?
What do you think makes her socompelling?
(22:29):
And also this idea that she'sdeaf and she can't actually hear
the creature.
How did you find that?
Speaker 2 (22:39):
Yes, at first I thought you know, okay, so we
have a deaf character.
Is this a sort of form of stuntcasting?
Is it really, you know, is it,quite audibly, an attempt to
widen representation and toprovide, you know, less abled
(23:00):
characters, less abled actors, achance to perform in a big
budget show like Doctor who?
But of course it was built into the story that, in fact, the
deafness was not just a prop, itwas actually part of the story,
the fact that she couldn't hear.
I thought it was a very goodperformance from the actress,
(23:20):
rose Elling Ellis, who didsuccessfully capture both the
vulnerability of that characterbut also some of the
manipulation of her as well,that she knows there's a
creature on her back which she'snot going to say because she
desperately wants to escape thatbase.
And, of course, if she does,then the monster will escape.
(23:42):
So that was well done.
So a very good performance.
And I think not contrary tosome of the worst criticisms of
this new era of Doctor who, Ididn't think it was just
shoehorning in politicalcorrectness.
I think it actually made itpart of the narrative and that
was laudable.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Yeah, I think you shared a really good performance
.
Moving on, though, this episodekind of floods with the idea of
moral sacrifice, particularlywhen she's running away there
with an ultimately sacrificedlife jumping into a well, and I
thought that was actually quitedark to be in a kid's film.
But how did you think that?
How did that kind of ethicaltension there of she can
(24:27):
ultimately sacrifice herself byjumping into the well Well,
there's quite a lot of thatactually in, certainly in the
rebooted version of Doctor whosince 2005.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
I mean, I'm not going to go through it systematically
, but there's been a lot ofcharacters that the Doctor has
encountered who have sacrificedthemselves in order to so that
the main characters, whether theDoctor or the Companion, can
live on.
So actually, that character wasin quite a long tradition over
(25:04):
the last 20 years of Doctor whoof characters who sacrificed
themselves, and of course it's away of resolving the narrative
and getting us onto the nextepisode.
Of course it's a way ofresolving the narrative and and
getting us on to the on to thenext episode.
Um, of course, with this um,there is self-sacrifice, uh,
falling down, that well, butthere is very much the question
at the end of the episodewhether that self-sacrifice was
(25:26):
in vain and that perhaps thecreature is still with us and
ready to escape.
So there is a slightlyambiguous scene at the very end
of the episode in which twocharacters discuss and it's
clear that maybe something isbehind one of the characters'
backs.
So we may not have seen thelast of this monster and it may
(25:50):
even be that that is a blind byRussell T Davis and that in fact
, who knows, the monster mayeven have escaped into the
TARDIS.
So I don't know that and that'sspeculation, but certainly
there was a hint at the end thatthe monster was not destroyed
by being plunged down a well.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
So what do you think the well then is meant to
represent?
Again, coming back to power,memory, darkness.
That's why I felt like both ofthese episodes are very dark.
They are.
I don't know if you believe indark and time, but compared to
other episodes of Doctor who,and particularly written by
Russell T Davis, I thought itwas very dark.
And then, what is the symbolism, do you think?
Speaker 2 (26:35):
Well, I would say that, you know.
I think Russell T Davis himselfsaid this when he took over as
showrunner way back in 2005.
You know, if you look at theentire history of Doctor who,
it's saturated in death.
It's.
You know, the Doctor whouniverse is a very dark and
dystopian one.
You have the character of theDoctor who's the hero who brings
(26:58):
light, but it's in a very darkuniverse.
Now this compares interestinglywith something like Star Trek,
the original sort of classicStar Trek from the 60s, which
had much more of a gung-hooptimism that the idea of space
is a world of opportunities.
It's literally the finalfrontier, the next and final
American frontier to beconquered by the intrepid
(27:22):
Americans venturing out on theappropriately named USS
Enterprise.
So it's steeped in sort ofAmerican frontierism.
With Doctor who and otherBritish science fiction,
television and science fictionin general, you have a much
darker view of the universe andindeed of the future if we take
(27:42):
it as science fiction, and youcan relate that, as I have in
sort of academic writing, forexample, to the fact that for
Americans in the 1960s onwards,going into space was a physical
possibility, whereas for theBritish it wasn't.
All the British could do waslook back to the past.
So it's interesting that aBritish show is about time
(28:04):
travel whereas the American showis about going forward and
conquering space, if we takeStar Trek.
So Doctor who's always beensaturated in death, and I would
argue that the most effectiveepisodes in the last 20 years of
the reboot of Doctor who calledNew has been the dark ones, the
(28:26):
ones that scare us.
That's what Doctor who wasoriginally intended to be.
It was supposed to be, you know, idea of um hiding behind the
sofa and scaling kids.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
So I don't think we should be worried about um these
shows being too dark, umbecause, um, that's what
children like almost coming tothe end of it, but this, this uh
title, the world, it sort ofgives a nod to the midnight.
Is there a sort of mythologyemerging, a bit like what
(28:57):
happened in previous seasons,where they sort of got together
and it became like it was builtup to a larger story or like yes
, well, there is a larger story.
Speaker 2 (29:10):
There's clearly a larger story.
This is the modern trait forwhat we call episodic shows.
So it's a doctor who is anepisodic show in the sense that,
um, uh, you know, each story isself-contained but it operates
within a larger season arc.
(29:32):
Um, and the season arc isclearly that the gods are coming
to invade us and, as we've seenfrom the very end of episode
one, the earth appears to havebeen destroyed.
So we saw images of debris ofthe Eiffel Tower and floating in
(29:53):
space in a London cab.
So what has happened to theEarth?
And the Doctor and Belinda arebeginning to understand that the
reason, maybe, that they can'ttake Belinda back to the exact
date and time that she wants togo home is because the Earth may
not exist.
So it's a larger season arc andthis is the way that New who
(30:15):
has tended to operate.
It's been what one would call asequential series, where each
episode is self-contained, astory of the week but part of a
larger sequence, a larger storyarc that will eventually have a
narrative payoff in the finaltwo episodes, which I understand
(30:36):
is a two-parter, at the veryend of this season.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
And, yeah, these scenes almost made me think
about Planet of the Apes atleast I was, you know when they
come in and see what have theydone to us?
And yeah, and certainly dark.
So what are your final thoughtsand what is there any other
thing you want to add for thisepisode that we haven't said so
far?
Speaker 2 (31:04):
I just say on a subjective level, you know, as a
fan as much as a someone who,who, um, can pontificate if you
like about doctor, who is that?
I'm I'm finding that eachepisode is getting better than
the last, which is a very goodsign.
So the robot revolution, as wediscussed in our first episode
talking about Doctor who, iskind of a scene opener quite
(31:28):
light, quite airy, and then theepisodes get darker and darker,
with the world definitely beingthe most dark, and it looks as
if it's going to get even darkeras we return to revisit Ruby
Sunday, the companion from lastseason, and see how she's fared.
There seems to be some monsteron her back as well.
(31:49):
So the show is Each episode'sgetting better than the last,
which has got to be a good sign.
One just hopes that the seasonis going to get the viewership
that it deserves, because therehave been some concerns about
the ratings.
But I did notice that theepisode three got a bump in
(32:11):
overnight viewership compared tothe previous episode.
So 400,000 more people tunedcompared to the previous episode
.
So 400,000 more people tuned into the Well in the UK compared
to Lux.
It's still not huge numbers,but it was 1.9 million for the
Well overnight ratings, I hastento add so streaming figures
will come later compared to 1.5million for Lux, and you tend to
(32:36):
find that that if there's beena strong episode the week before
then the audience will come tothe next episode.
So one waits to see what willhappen in terms of the next
episode, lucky man, and whetherit will benefit from an
inherited audience of people who, maybe through word of mouth,
heard that the well was a goodepisode that's good?
Speaker 1 (32:58):
Well, let's hope so, and, as you know, you can always
follow us here and subscribe toour YouTube channel, and we
will, of course, release moreepisodes.
But thank you very much, and Ialso want to thank Professor
Cook for contributing to thisepisode and we will see you next
time.
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
Thank you and bye-bye , bye.
Thank you.
Spotlights fade, the curtains rise, new stories
waiting behind our eyes.
Stories waiting behind our eyes, charlotte and John with the
final say, breaking down thescreens in their own way.
(00:35):
This is the Final Cut, wherethe real reviews ignite.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Hi and welcome back to another episode of Final Cut.
So today we're going to discussthe latest episodes from Doctor
who.
The one is called Lux and theother one is called the Well,
and both of them have a ratherdark tone.
I mean, the Lux introduces usto a kind of evil cartoon
(01:05):
character called Ring-a-Ding,which almost brings thoughts
back into Roger Rabbit when yousaw the recording of it, but an
interesting, slightlydarker-toned story which is the
same as well.
He has a kind of again aslightly evil character, but at
this time an invisible evilcharacter, but this time an
invisible evil character.
(01:26):
So, but I will start talkingabout Lux, I think in this
episode.
So Lux, it blends animation andlive action.
Did you think it worked and howwas that actually?
How effective was that whentelling the story and what was
your view opinion of the episodeas well, I should ask.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Well, hi, charlotte and hi folks Delighted to be
back with you talking aboutDoctor who.
Yeah, I really enjoyed Lux.
I mean, I think, in common witha lot of the critical reception
of this episode, it's regardedas one of the strongest episodes
, certainly of Russell T Davis'ssecond run showrunner what
people are now rathereuphemistically calling R2-D2,
(02:11):
r-t-d2, because it was certainlystrong.
It very much put me in mind alittle bit of who Framed Roger
Rabbit Actually as well, withthe idea of people stepping out
of the cinema frame an woodyallen movie from 1985 called the
purple rose of cairo, in which,um, in the 1930s, a woman goes
(02:33):
to the cinema only for a screenidol or a matinee idol to step
out of the screen and run awaywith her.
So there's there's a sort ofsimilar feel here in Lux.
So I really enjoyed it.
It was strong, it was dark, butit was also fun and light in
terms of the use of cartoons andanimations.
(02:53):
So it was a nice balancebetween the dark and the light,
I felt.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
And yes, and also, what did you think about Lux,
this god of light?
What do you think thatsymbolises?
I mean I was kind of thinking,does it symbolise fame or does
it symbolise power?
I mean I had sort of variousthoughts of that kind of what it
could be.
What was your opinion of it?
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Well, I think there's a danger sometimes of reading
too much into episodes of Doctorwho.
I think it is clear within thedevelopment of the RTD2 Shuti
Gatwa run of episodes thatRussell T Davis is very much
stepping into the idea of Doctorwho, much more as fantasy
(03:40):
rather than science fiction.
So we're starting to get apantheon of gods unfold.
We already met the god of music, we met Sutec, the god of death
, at the end of the finalepisode of season one of the
rebooted season one, and herewe're meeting the god of light.
So it's the idea that there arethese dark forces beyond the
(04:04):
universe, beyond the rationallaws of physics, that are
invading the universe.
So that's how it's justifiedwithin the show that suddenly
the show is lurching towardsfantasy rather than science
fiction and elements of thesupernatural, in this case
literally beyond the universe,beyond the physical laws of the
universe that the Doctorcharacter understands and that
(04:27):
creates fear because it it meansthat the doctor can't
necessarily solve it with hisusual um, uh laws of science.
Instead he has to reach for,maybe, maybe, forms of trickery
and um and deception of the gods.
So, um, this character is LuxImperator, the emperor, or god
(04:48):
of light, and I think it justneeds to be taken at that level
almost.
The idea of elemental forcesAgain interesting connection to
British science fictiontelevision history.
It kind of echoes an old showfrom the early 1980s called
Sapphire and Steel, which wasabout a sort of psychic time
(05:11):
detective agency where you hadthese various elements of the
universe that were battling eachother.
So in the case of Sapphire andSteel they were the good people
fighting other elemental forces.
So in some ways Russell T Davisis drawing upon that idea of
fantasy, allowing a space forelemental forces like light to
(05:33):
battle with us mere mortals.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
I want to go back to Mr Ringading, because he is a
kind of bizarre charismaticvillain, but is he actually in
the style of previous villainand did you find him effective?
I mean, was he, is he?
Is he threatening, is it?
Is it a sort of metaphor forsomething?
And and sometimes I wonder ifit's a Disney like Disney coming
(05:59):
in and their influence?
What was your view of thevillain, mr ringer?
Speaker 2 (06:06):
well, I wouldn't say it's.
It's done in the style of adisney cartoon.
In fact, that might be seen asan insult to disney because, um,
you're showing a cartoon thatturns very dark, so in many ways
it's much more in the style of.
It actually struck me more inthe style of sort of max
fleischer cartoons like Felixthe Cat, for example, which was
an early rival to Disney.
(06:27):
But Disney's influence iscertainly there in terms of the
budget, the ability now to mixlive action with animation and
to do it convincingly.
Doctor who even in the rebootedseries since 2005, where there
was a bigger budget for specialeffects, even then it could
(06:49):
never have attempted to do thissort of, um, mixing of live
action and animation.
Only with the disney resourcesare they, are they able to do it
and it works really well.
Um, I mean, I look, I paidattention to the, to the use of
animation in the context of thelive action, and it was pretty
seamless.
(07:09):
There was no sense of the actorslooking at the wrong place, for
example, that you sometimes getin cheaper variations of that,
and I thought the characterworks very well in terms of
being something that isostensibly light and fun for the
kids but has this much darkerelement to it that, as we you
know, we think, oh, it's just acartoon and then all of a sudden
it's actually really dark.
(07:30):
The cartoon characters in manyways are kind of trickster
figure.
Trickster, you know, the ideaof some sort of impish devil
that comes in and tries tocreate chaos.
So it very much worked, I think, think, within that level, the
idea of the character as atrickster.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
And then I want to go on this pushing boundaries, and
obviously it is physically aboundary where they step out and
meet the fans etc and kind ofstep it out of the frame and
trying to overlist.
But maybe there it is wherethey're actually trapped, where
they can't actually get out.
So how do you think thatelement works, this kind of
(08:11):
different words and trying tokind of almost Truman show, like
being stuck in?
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Yes, yes, I mean, in some ways it's Russell T Davis,
the writer, pushing the idea ofbreaking the frame as far as it
could possibly go within thecontext of Doctor who.
So as soon as you have the ideaof breaking the frame, of
stepping outside of the filminto reality, it's a short
(08:38):
logical step or hop to actuallythink well, hang on, let's break
the frame and have thecharacters from doctor who
actually step out into somethingthat resembles our reality.
Now, when I, when I I watchedthis first of all um, I thought,
I have to confess, my heartsunk a little bit so I thought
(08:59):
maybe this has gone too far,that suddenly you know what was
a an interesting sort of metastory, if you like um set in the
1950s.
Suddenly we're in our worldwith a bunch of of russell t
davis satirical representationof what fans are.
And there's always the danger,with television shows like
(09:20):
doctor who and others, of whatwe call euphemistically jumping
the shark, where it becomes justtoo unreal and therefore it's
impossible to put the fictionback into the bottle and
actually to have some sort ofbelievability to what is.
After all, doctor who is just aseries of tall tales and you've
got to suspend your disbelief inorder to run with it, and could
(09:43):
we ever re-immerse ourselves inthe story again now that we've
actually broken through to theworld of the fans?
However, russell T Daviscleverly takes it back.
So actually it turns out it'sjust to be another level of
deception from a trickstercharacter, mr Ringading, that in
fact they're in a fictionaluniverse, although it still
(10:06):
begged the question why on theTV you had the Doctor who logo
with BBC brand on it.
So how does that work withinthe fiction, within a fiction?
But, however, he did rescue itback.
So it was the idea that in fact, the Doctor, it was just
another level of fiction thatwas preventing the Doctor and
Bel, just another level offiction that was preventing the
doctor and belinda from seeingthe real reality, although at
(10:28):
the very end the fans survived.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
so I suspect that we may not have seen the last of
those fans yeah, yeah, that was,and I think, and I think it was
a really exciting episode,interesting use of animation etc
.
And just to find a questionbefore we maybe move on to where
well is, you know, they set itin the 1950s.
Do you think it was like a boldchoice by also making this
(10:51):
slightly say political orpolitical is the wrong word the
point that this is a segregatedmiami where you know, blacks are
colored, are not allowed intothe cinema, etc.
Do you think that was a kind ofbold step?
How did that affect the overallaction?
(11:11):
Do you?
Speaker 2 (11:11):
think yes, well, um, I like the 1950s settings.
I always like doctor who,historical stories and the idea
of 1950s amer is quite aresonant one because it relates
obviously to the theme of cinemaand breaking out of the frame.
Oddly enough, there were oddsort of paparazzi shots that
(11:36):
appeared a year or so ago whenthis episode was being produced,
and there seemed to be somediscussion that perhaps it was
all going to be about roswelland ufo crashes.
But in fact obviously it wasn't, and it was.
It was set for the most partwithin the confines of a cinema.
So the 1950s historical settingworked well with the context of
(12:00):
cinema, because you know it'sboom time for the cinema.
I also like the resonances tothe fact that nuclear testing
was going on in the cold war andthe idea that the god of light
would be attracted to to thenuclear light.
But as soon as, of course, youdo this and you make that
decision to set it in the 1950sor indeed any historical setting
(12:22):
pre our own contemporary era,you inevitably when you, when
you cast actors of color in thelead roles, you inevitably have
to contend with that, and soactually I felt that that was
handled quite well by russell tdavis, it wasn't sort of put in
your face but it had to beacknowledged because this was a
(12:44):
segregated society and if we'resupposed to suspend disbelief
then we have to be able to toactually um, uh, relate to the
fact and understand thehistorical reality that that
that there were segregation bars.
Um, there's a nice line actuallywithin the the show itself the
(13:05):
episode where Russell T D, wherethe doctor character is being
challenged by Belinda and hesays look, belinda, I you know,
I sometimes let worlds topplethemselves.
So it's the idea that he willnot intervene in terms of the
overt racism that's going on.
Instead he'll just let historytake its course and eventually
(13:27):
that will hopefully resolveitself.
So it was handled quite well.
But it's always going to be anissue actually with historical
stories and I'm glad in someways that New Doctor who is
acknowledging it and isn't justsort of operating on a sort of
colorblind issue, that it isacknowledging the ethnicity of
the lead characters.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Maybe more topical.
I just can't leave this episodewithout mentioning Belinda.
How did you think she performedin this?
What is her role?
Did you feel more of her rolecoming out now and the fact that
she's much more independentthan your previous companions?
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Yeah, yes, if you recall, in our first discussion
about the first episode of thenew season of Doctor who, the
Robot Revolution, I felt thatBelinda was a sort of maybe a
rather pale imitation of theprevious feisty assistant
companion, donna, played byCatherine Tate in the original
(14:31):
Russell T Davis run of episodesback in the noughties.
I still oddly felt that with Luxthat her best moments were more
when she was involved withinthe story rather than
challenging the Doctor, thatsometimes those punches didn't
quite land.
But I have to say and thismaybe leads us nicely into a
(14:53):
segue into the next episode, theWell that in episode three I
thought her performance was muchmore strong and much more
emotionally exciting for theviewer to watch.
I thought it was a muchstronger, more intense
performance.
So it may simply be that thisis a, this is an actress who's
(15:15):
learning as she gets more intothe role, because I do believe
episodes in chronological order,um of transmission, so um.
I felt she was much more strongin the well and and gave an
excellent uh, quite anguishedperformance at times.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
So moving on then to Welles Welles is slightly more
darker.
We almost think of.
It almost shifts us into thelanguage of psychological horror
.
How did you so we kind of feelas if we were sitting on our
edge of a seat?
How did you have success whatdo you think they were with
(15:52):
getting that sort of horror-like, thriller-like feel to the
viewers?
Speaker 2 (15:59):
Well, it's very much.
This episode, though, wellsvery much in a long tradition of
Doctor who of kind of I meanwhat euphemistically might be
called bases under siegenarratives or bottle narratives
where it's all set within mainlya kind of single location, a
(16:20):
space station or an undergroundbase of some sort.
And this goes right the wayback to classic Doctor who.
There were always episodes orstories, you know two or three
part stories that were set inthat kind of bottleneck or base
siege scenario.
So the well is very much withinthat tradition.
(16:41):
Explicitly it gives the nodback to Midnight, an absolute
classic bottle episode, if youlike, from RTD's first season.
As showrunner Now, whether youneeded to make that connection
explicitly, I'm not so sure itseems to me that it's noticeable
(17:06):
from the credits that there aretwo writers on this episode,
russell T Davis, the showrunner,working in collaboration with a
new writer called Sharma AngelWalfall, and it may be, for
example, that she pitched theidea of a story set on a base
with a well, and Russell T Davisthought hang on, that's a bit
like Midnight.
So what we'll do is we'll jointhe two stories together and
(17:28):
therefore preempt any kind offan criticism that they've seen
this sort of bottle type storybefore um.
But nevertheless, the well, thewell was effective, I thought
so how do you think they comparethat?
Speaker 1 (17:40):
if you're comparing the well to the midnight, you
know, um, does it live live upto the same hype, if that's the
way to put it.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Well, it was interesting actually, on X,
formerly known as Twitter,stephen Moffat, one of the
former showrunners of therebooted Doctor who, who
followed Russell T Davis and whoactually has contributed some
episodes to Shuti Gatwa, was run.
Um, he tweeted out on x that,uh, hold on to your horses,
(18:17):
don't you know?
Close all the doors.
Uh, don't talk to anyone online.
This is an absolute stone coldclassic.
Perhaps blinks.
Long rain is over.
Because blink, written bysteven moffat, regarded as one
of the best episodes.
I didn't feel that the welllived up to that hype and I
think that was Stephen Moffatrather generously trying to
(18:40):
boost the viewership for Doctorwho, which struggled a little
bit in terms of overnightratings, at least in the UK.
So it didn't work as well, butit was a strong dark story.
That was probably one of thestrongest episodes of Shitty
Gatwas run, but not, I would say, beating some of the real Stone
(19:05):
Cold classics of an earlier era.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
Yeah, and I wasn't super, not a super fan of this
the unseen sort of nature of thecreature and but sort of and
kind of maybe wonder is this thecreature from within?
Is it?
It's, it's the danger fromwithin that we can't spot.
You know it's, it's thereference to that.
So what do you think it's addto the storytelling?
I, I, I just it didn't landwell with me, but maybe I wasn't
(19:32):
picking up something how didyou find this unseen creature?
Speaker 2 (19:38):
well, the creature um , you know it's a.
This is a sequel to midnightnow in the original um 2008
episode.
Midnight it was very much thethe creature was was unseen.
Essentially it it just invadedhuman hosts and what was
remarkable about that episodewas the way that it used the
(19:59):
idea of the monster of the weekto explore how the real monsters
were actually the human beingsthemselves, because they turn on
each other.
When they realise there's anunseen enemy within this space
shuttle that they're all sort oftrapped in, then they start to
fight with each other and thinkabout jettisoning somebody into
(20:21):
space if they think that youknow falsely, as it turns out
that they're actually the host.
I didn't get so much thatresonance with the well, it was
just more the idea of a creatureon your back and something that
is dark and is unseen, and tothat extent, this was a more
(20:41):
simple exploration of the forcesof darkness compared to
Midnight.
I mean the well, if we thinkabout the title, the well, the
idea of something dark, deep anddangerous, subterranean,
perhaps from the deepestrecesses of our subconscious.
So it's the idea.
It's maybe the sum of all ourfears, the idea that it's an
(21:04):
unseen, unknowing enemy that wecan't see, but only just get a
brief glimpse of uh before it'sgone.
So, uh, it's really playingwith these kind of primal fears.
Um, I had some criticisms thatin fact, um, the, the, the
problem actually was because, um, that kind of psychological
(21:27):
horror works very well with alower budget show, as soon as
you have the big budget ofDisney with those huge big sets,
that somehow that kind ofprimal fear and claustrophobic
horror is diluted by just thesheer size of the set and that
could be a potential criticismof the world.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
It makes me almost think of a film that was very
popular a few years ago calledthe Blair Witch Project, which
was done very much with shakycameras, but the thing of it was
that it was something unseenthat you couldn't quite say.
It may be better if you usethat example.
Moving on, though, to thecharacter Alice Fenley and I was
(22:07):
actually very impressed by herperformance.
I think it was very, very goodand, but I think it was a strong
actress.
I almost thought it was a shamethat she had such a little role
.
I think she was great.
She kind of lightened up inaction a bit, but what do you
think you know?
What do you think makes her socompelling?
(22:29):
And also this idea that she'sdeaf and she can't actually hear
the creature.
How did you find that?
Speaker 2 (22:39):
Yes, at first I thought you know, okay, so we
have a deaf character.
Is this a sort of form of stuntcasting?
Is it really, you know, is it,quite audibly, an attempt to
widen representation and toprovide, you know, less abled
(23:00):
characters, less abled actors, achance to perform in a big
budget show like Doctor who?
But of course it was built into the story that, in fact, the
deafness was not just a prop, itwas actually part of the story,
the fact that she couldn't hear.
I thought it was a very goodperformance from the actress,
(23:20):
rose Elling Ellis, who didsuccessfully capture both the
vulnerability of that characterbut also some of the
manipulation of her as well,that she knows there's a
creature on her back which she'snot going to say because she
desperately wants to escape thatbase.
And, of course, if she does,then the monster will escape.
(23:42):
So that was well done.
So a very good performance.
And I think not contrary tosome of the worst criticisms of
this new era of Doctor who, Ididn't think it was just
shoehorning in politicalcorrectness.
I think it actually made itpart of the narrative and that
was laudable.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Yeah, I think you shared a really good performance
.
Moving on, though, this episodekind of floods with the idea of
moral sacrifice, particularlywhen she's running away there
with an ultimately sacrificedlife jumping into a well, and I
thought that was actually quitedark to be in a kid's film.
But how did you think that?
How did that kind of ethicaltension there of she can
(24:27):
ultimately sacrifice herself byjumping into the well Well,
there's quite a lot of thatactually in, certainly in the
rebooted version of Doctor whosince 2005.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
I mean, I'm not going to go through it systematically
, but there's been a lot ofcharacters that the Doctor has
encountered who have sacrificedthemselves in order to so that
the main characters, whether theDoctor or the Companion, can
live on.
So actually, that character wasin quite a long tradition over
(25:04):
the last 20 years of Doctor whoof characters who sacrificed
themselves, and of course it's away of resolving the narrative
and getting us onto the nextepisode.
Of course it's a way ofresolving the narrative and and
getting us on to the on to thenext episode.
Um, of course, with this um,there is self-sacrifice, uh,
falling down, that well, butthere is very much the question
at the end of the episodewhether that self-sacrifice was
(25:26):
in vain and that perhaps thecreature is still with us and
ready to escape.
So there is a slightlyambiguous scene at the very end
of the episode in which twocharacters discuss and it's
clear that maybe something isbehind one of the characters'
backs.
So we may not have seen thelast of this monster and it may
(25:50):
even be that that is a blind byRussell T Davis and that in fact
, who knows, the monster mayeven have escaped into the
TARDIS.
So I don't know that and that'sspeculation, but certainly
there was a hint at the end thatthe monster was not destroyed
by being plunged down a well.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
So what do you think the well then is meant to
represent?
Again, coming back to power,memory, darkness.
That's why I felt like both ofthese episodes are very dark.
They are.
I don't know if you believe indark and time, but compared to
other episodes of Doctor who,and particularly written by
Russell T Davis, I thought itwas very dark.
And then, what is the symbolism, do you think?
Speaker 2 (26:35):
Well, I would say that, you know.
I think Russell T Davis himselfsaid this when he took over as
showrunner way back in 2005.
You know, if you look at theentire history of Doctor who,
it's saturated in death.
It's.
You know, the Doctor whouniverse is a very dark and
dystopian one.
You have the character of theDoctor who's the hero who brings
(26:58):
light, but it's in a very darkuniverse.
Now this compares interestinglywith something like Star Trek,
the original sort of classicStar Trek from the 60s, which
had much more of a gung-hooptimism that the idea of space
is a world of opportunities.
It's literally the finalfrontier, the next and final
American frontier to beconquered by the intrepid
(27:22):
Americans venturing out on theappropriately named USS
Enterprise.
So it's steeped in sort ofAmerican frontierism.
With Doctor who and otherBritish science fiction,
television and science fictionin general, you have a much
darker view of the universe andindeed of the future if we take
(27:42):
it as science fiction, and youcan relate that, as I have in
sort of academic writing, forexample, to the fact that for
Americans in the 1960s onwards,going into space was a physical
possibility, whereas for theBritish it wasn't.
All the British could do waslook back to the past.
So it's interesting that aBritish show is about time
(28:04):
travel whereas the American showis about going forward and
conquering space, if we takeStar Trek.
So Doctor who's always beensaturated in death, and I would
argue that the most effectiveepisodes in the last 20 years of
the reboot of Doctor who calledNew has been the dark ones, the
(28:26):
ones that scare us.
That's what Doctor who wasoriginally intended to be.
It was supposed to be, you know, idea of um hiding behind the
sofa and scaling kids.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
So I don't think we should be worried about um these
shows being too dark, umbecause, um, that's what
children like almost coming tothe end of it, but this, this uh
title, the world, it sort ofgives a nod to the midnight.
Is there a sort of mythologyemerging, a bit like what
(28:57):
happened in previous seasons,where they sort of got together
and it became like it was builtup to a larger story or like yes
, well, there is a larger story.
Speaker 2 (29:10):
There's clearly a larger story.
This is the modern trait forwhat we call episodic shows.
So it's a doctor who is anepisodic show in the sense that,
um, uh, you know, each story isself-contained but it operates
within a larger season arc.
(29:32):
Um, and the season arc isclearly that the gods are coming
to invade us and, as we've seenfrom the very end of episode
one, the earth appears to havebeen destroyed.
So we saw images of debris ofthe Eiffel Tower and floating in
(29:53):
space in a London cab.
So what has happened to theEarth?
And the Doctor and Belinda arebeginning to understand that the
reason, maybe, that they can'ttake Belinda back to the exact
date and time that she wants togo home is because the Earth may
not exist.
So it's a larger season arc andthis is the way that New who
(30:15):
has tended to operate.
It's been what one would call asequential series, where each
episode is self-contained, astory of the week but part of a
larger sequence, a larger storyarc that will eventually have a
narrative payoff in the finaltwo episodes, which I understand
(30:36):
is a two-parter, at the veryend of this season.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
And, yeah, these scenes almost made me think
about Planet of the Apes atleast I was, you know when they
come in and see what have theydone to us?
And yeah, and certainly dark.
So what are your final thoughtsand what is there any other
thing you want to add for thisepisode that we haven't said so
far?
Speaker 2 (31:04):
I just say on a subjective level, you know, as a
fan as much as a someone who,who, um, can pontificate if you
like about doctor, who is that?
I'm I'm finding that eachepisode is getting better than
the last, which is a very goodsign.
So the robot revolution, as wediscussed in our first episode
talking about Doctor who, iskind of a scene opener quite
(31:28):
light, quite airy, and then theepisodes get darker and darker,
with the world definitely beingthe most dark, and it looks as
if it's going to get even darkeras we return to revisit Ruby
Sunday, the companion from lastseason, and see how she's fared.
There seems to be some monsteron her back as well.
(31:49):
So the show is Each episode'sgetting better than the last,
which has got to be a good sign.
One just hopes that the seasonis going to get the viewership
that it deserves, because therehave been some concerns about
the ratings.
But I did notice that theepisode three got a bump in
(32:11):
overnight viewership compared tothe previous episode.
So 400,000 more people tunedcompared to the previous episode
.
So 400,000 more people tuned into the Well in the UK compared
to Lux.
It's still not huge numbers,but it was 1.9 million for the
Well overnight ratings, I hastento add so streaming figures
will come later compared to 1.5million for Lux, and you tend to
(32:36):
find that that if there's beena strong episode the week before
then the audience will come tothe next episode.
So one waits to see what willhappen in terms of the next
episode, lucky man, and whetherit will benefit from an
inherited audience of people who, maybe through word of mouth,
heard that the well was a goodepisode that's good?
Speaker 1 (32:58):
Well, let's hope so, and, as you know, you can always
follow us here and subscribe toour YouTube channel, and we
will, of course, release moreepisodes.
But thank you very much, and Ialso want to thank Professor
Cook for contributing to thisepisode and we will see you next
time.
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
Thank you and bye-bye , bye.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com