I don't care for this one at all. It's a very pure expression of RTD's "kid-friendly" vision of Doctor Who, but...it makes it kid-friendly by featuring farting aliens. No thanks.
But there's still good stuff! Pretty much everything about Rose's return is pretty great. Jackie's anger and relief after Rose has been missing for a year, Mickey's status as a suspected murderer, all good stuff. We get to meet Harriet Jones, MP for Flydale North, who's always a delight. We get to see UNIT, still with "United Nations" in their name. We also get to meet Toshiko Sato.
The broad strokes of the plot are interesting. A crashed UFO, faked by aliens not as a diversion, but as a trap for the council of Big Brains that would immediately convene. I like that a lot. I also liked the way the Doctor immediately drops his dismissiveness of Ricky Mickey as soon as he says something intelligent.
But at the end of the day, those farting aliens are always going to be there.
Agreed on all counts. Most of what occurs around the farting aliens is pretty solid, but they're not at all entertaining. They also play into some ugly tropes about fat people being disgusting. Oddly, I don't feel a lot of the episode is particularly appealing to children outside of the Slitheen. It's got some fairly "adult" stuff with Jackie, all the political goings-on, and multiple fairly long segments of people just watching the news.
There is that one odd moment of Rose telling the Doctor "You're so gay!" as they discuss the slap. It's hard to take much offense to it coming from the famously-gay Davies, but it's at least unexpected. Davies explained the inclusion in an email exchange with a fan:
Davies on Rose calling the Doctor "gay"
Hi Alun,
Good point. It was a complicated moment which required a great deal of thought.
The simple answer is: that's how people talk. And although that's simple, it's very powerful. I can't imagine a proper drama which is couched in terms of how people should talk.
Second, the word is changing. This is an irreversible process beyond anyone's control. It seems to me that we're becoming people who complain about the use of the word gay, much as people used to complain about the word gay, because it no longer meant 'happy'. No words stay staticl.
But most importantly, you're right - there's a vital political issue burning away here, and you do nothing about those issues if you ignore them. I've put it right at the heart of BBC1 primetime. Put it this way: let's imagine a viewer who has, roughly, yours and my sensibilities. Let's call him A. Now, before that comment, there were millions of kids using the word 'gay' as an insult, and what was A doing about it? Probably nothing. Yes, there are activists out there, but most people don't, so A was left passive. Nothing changes. On the other hand, Rose says 'You're so gay', A objects, and - here's the crux - A DOES SOMETHING. He gets up off his seat. He tells his nearest and dearest that he objects. He might even go so far as to contact the author, to complain.
Fantastic. Good television isn't television which makes you smile all the time and agree. If it makes you stand up and object - especially where you weren't expecting it - then that's a brilliant and powerful thing. That's why it's important that the word comes from Rose; lovely, kind Rose (who's exactly the right age to be using that word in that context). If a villain had said it, then he's a villain, and therefore an idiot, so there's no problem. When the good guys say it, as they do, then that causes a problem. And that problem is good.
It's agitation. And it works. If one parent - watching a family show - objected about the usage of 'gay' in front of his or her kids; if one teacher thought that was wrong, that this pernicious insult has invaded even Doctor Who; if one man has gone to the effort of contacting a writer in order to tackle a vital subject, and will then take that debate into other areas of his life, then that is absolutely excellent. If Rose had said nothing, less would happen. You can't always make your point in life by saying the right thing and being nice (not in my opinion anyway, and unfortunately, I'm the writer!). You have to provoke.
And there's a long game at work here. Let's imagine, say, viewer B, who is an idiot. And B chuckles along in Beavis-and-Butthead style at Rose's comment, agreeing; he thinks, I like this show, I hate the gays, Doctor Who is good. Fine. So he keeps watching. And in a few weeks time, the Doctor gets a strapping, heroic male companion... who is clearly and resolutely bisexual. Viewer B's head implodes. My work is done.
Funnily enough, I was queueing up in Tesco's today, and the 12 y/o girl behind me in the queue called her 11 y/o brother a gayboy, in a venomous tone of voice. I turned round and said, if you call him a gayboy one more time, this gayboy is gonna smash your face in. Unsubtle, yes. I threatened a girl! But it worked. Activism isn't easy, but it's needed, so I'm delighted you wrote.
I'm glad you're enjoying the show, I hope you keep watching.
All the best,
Russell
tl;dr: That's how people of the time talked, not how he felt they should talk. He then goes into some contradictory arguments: that the word is changing and complaining about it now is no better than the people who complained when it changed from meaning "happy" ... but also that it is wrong and he included it in the episode in order to deliberately spark opposition to its use.
It eventually devolves into him "today" threatening to smash a 12 year-old girl's face in for calling her brother a "gayboy". I don't much know what to make of it. Is it activism for a 42-year-old man to threaten a child with violence? Weird stuff.