Ghost Machine
by Helen Raynor
Synopsis
Episode 3 starts with our heroes chasing what appears to be an alien. In fact, it turns out to be an alien artifact and it falls into Gwen’s hands. In what can only be described as a “don’t push that button you moron†moment, Gwen pushes the button and sees a ghost. Investigation reveals that it was an echo of a real event that happened on that very spot.
Later, Owen uses the machine and experiences a 30 year old “unsolved†rape and murder. Tortured by what he has experienced, Owen tracks down the murderer, looking for… revenge?
The original “owner†of the device was a petty crook. It’s revealed that he was using the device to blackmail people. He also reveals there is a second piece to the device, which foretold his death. Gwen, in yet another “don’t push those buttons you stupid, stupid moron†moment pushes the buttons and witnesses herself, blood dripping from her hands and knife still in them accusing Owen of intending to commit murder.
Can the future be changed. Can Owen be trusted?
Analysis
I liked this episode a lot. To do that, you do have to be able to put aside the completely illogical nature of these devices. It rather reminds me of all the stupid cursed object in Friday the 23, the Series. It’s just there to give the writers something to play with. If you do that, this episode works, and it works well. What would you do if you experienced the fear and terror of being raped and murdered, and had the opportunity to bring the crime to justice 40 years later? What if you saw your own death?
Because Torchwood is an extension of Doctor Who, we can assume that the future is not immutable, but do you have to be a Time Lord to make a difference?
Again, good acting, pacing and cinematography. Why are these episodes of Torchwood paced better than the new Doctor Whos? Doctor Who always feels rushed and the conclusion is slapped on suddenly. So far, the Torchwoods have maintained a even pacing that leads cleanly to the conclusion neither being rushed nor too slow.
Time travel, changing history and Doctor Who… I think they were wise to leave it open whether it would have been possible to change things. I hate paradoxes, and there are already quite enough of them in Who.
Torchwood remains consistently entertaining (and next week’s looks superb). I agree about the pacing. It can’t be as simple as an extra five minutes…
Time travel, changing history and Doctor Who… I think they were wise to leave it open whether it would have been possible to change things. I hate paradoxes, and there are already quite enough of them in Who.
Torchwood remains consistently entertaining (and next week’s looks superb). I agree about the pacing. It can’t be as simple as an extra five minutes…
I haven’t really put it to any scientific testing, but I think the difference in pacing is actually less characterization. Torchwood has about 5 extra minutes, and I’d guess they use a total of about 7-10 minutes for pure character moments, and the rest is mystery/action – which is not to say that the mystery/action isn’t woven into characterization. That’s more tightly integrated into the plot – the characters’ development/perspective is driving the story in an integral way. (Previously mentioned caveats aside.)
In the Doctor Whos the characterization moments – the Doctor and Rose, buddy buddy and/or romance thing is more strapped on, and probably takes closer to 10-15 minutes of the total time because it isn’t integral to the plot. (Almost never.)
Let’s face it, the Doctor doesn’t need an emotional base to drive a story – the format wasn’t designed for it.
I had another thought about this.
Torchwood has more regular characters, a regular setting, etc. So you can go straight into the story.
With the Doctor, everything changes with each story – new characters, new setting, best of all even new genres, but it’s all got to be established, now that most stories are one-part, within a single episode. That’s less time for developing the story, hence the issues with the pacing.
I had another thought about this.
Torchwood has more regular characters, a regular setting, etc. So you can go straight into the story.
With the Doctor, everything changes with each story – new characters, new setting, best of all even new genres, but it’s all got to be established, now that most stories are one-part, within a single episode. That’s less time for developing the story, hence the issues with the pacing.
I think you’re spot on, there.
I remember an interview with somebody British many years ago, probably in the 70’s. He was talking about the differences in US and UK television and movie productions.
One of the things that he pointed out was that British productions favored “the long form” while American productions favored “the short form.” He characterised those as terms used in Britain. (I’ve honestly never heard them elsewhere, but they make sense.)
At that time, in the US, book adaptations were taken directly to movie format (the short form) while in the UK they favored what we call the mini-series (the long form). That distinction has indelibly changed the way British and American television is scheduled and presented.
Back then they were just beginning to make a few mini-series for US TV such as Roots or the John Jakes’ psuedo-historical novels. These are much more common now that we have 100’s of channels with lots of time to fill, but they’re still only a small portion of the total output.
His argument was that the long form was better, particularly with historical stories, because it afforded more opportunity for the producer to weave a tapestry of the environment and times for the viewer.
That, to my mind, makes a solid argument that Torchwood is an ideal candidate for a simple episodic series, while Doctor Who should be pushed back to the long form. (Or at least a longer form.)
This also helps explain that present-day Earth is over-represented in the Doctor’s travels lately. In addition to all the factors of cost and logistics, present-day Earth stories should require less viewer setup per episode.
I think you’re spot on, there.
I remember an interview with somebody British many years ago, probably in the 70’s. He was talking about the differences in US and UK television and movie productions.
One of the things that he pointed out was that British productions favored “the long form” while American productions favored “the short form.” He characterised those as terms used in Britain. (I’ve honestly never heard them elsewhere, but they make sense.)
At that time, in the US, book adaptations were taken directly to movie format (the short form) while in the UK they favored what we call the mini-series (the long form). That distinction has indelibly changed the way British and American television is scheduled and presented.
Back then they were just beginning to make a few mini-series for US TV such as Roots or the John Jakes’ psuedo-historical novels. These are much more common now that we have 100’s of channels with lots of time to fill, but they’re still only a small portion of the total output.
His argument was that the long form was better, particularly with historical stories, because it afforded more opportunity for the producer to weave a tapestry of the environment and times for the viewer.
That, to my mind, makes a solid argument that Torchwood is an ideal candidate for a simple episodic series, while Doctor Who should be pushed back to the long form. (Or at least a longer form.)
This also helps explain that present-day Earth is over-represented in the Doctor’s travels lately. In addition to all the factors of cost and logistics, present-day Earth stories should require less viewer setup per episode.