Torchwood, review

What can one say about Torchwood? I think Charlie Brooker put it best:- "It's a school kid that's stayed up past its bed time." I agree, all the rudeness and silliness comes off like a bunch of children, choking on cigarettes behind the bike shed while flicking through their older brothers' dirty magazines.

It's obsession with being "adult" is, ironically, childish. When it does touch adult issues it's handled with comedic effect and then forgotten about a couple of episodes later. Unless it's part of the arc plot, in which case you'll never hear the end of it. Take season 2, the main arcs were "Owen's dead" and "Jack's brother is back" and we never heard the end of it. Owen whining that he was dead became more annoying than the critical character development it started off as.

This brings us to Torchwood's second problem. In the first season you really wanted Owen, Ianto and Tosh to be written out. Maybe not drastically killed but, like Martha Jones, put out to pasture. You could call on them later, but they were far too two dimensional to care about or like. I even joked about hitting them with an ice cream truck (it would have been funny... at least funnier than the "jokes" from the first year). I wasn't the only one, a lot of people called out for better characters.

So what did they do in the writers office? Listen to us of course, they developed Owen, Tosh and Ianto into people practically over night. Ianto became a wise cracking assistant who was confused about his sexuality. Owen, after having his heart broken, gave up chasing every woman he came across and became a sensitive and caring man who you actually liked. Tosh, while still chasing Owen, became more rounded. More than just "scanner girl" she became mistress of computers(!), hacking her way though government secrets with skill and when that failed cooking up plans that were almost frighteningly simple in their brutality.

Oh and then they killed the lot off as well.

When you kill a character, especially one you've spent so much effort in making us like, you want some sort of emotional impact. That's why you do it one at a time, give us chance to adjust to the new dynamic before butchering the next one. More importantly have a reason, not just angst for the main characters. A heroic sacrifice saving thousands. The death of a character is the end of a story and the start of the next one, not a obstacle to be overcome.

So we know the two biggest problems with Torchwood. Let's take a look at it's latest offering Children of Earth. The five hour long mini-series in place of the third year. In effect it was a five hour episode, a reminder of the 60's Doctor Who adventures that would go on for hours. Unfortunately those shows were better. An independent script editor could have cast a glance over Children of Earth and cut it down to three episodes, with work you might even get it down to two (at the end of a season, after dropping hints as part of an arc). That works out at about three hours worth of padding out of five in total. Painful to sit though and pumping the extremely basic story out to the EPIC length you'd expect a better one to be.

Sort of like novel-cuisine, there is so little development you think every last piece is an act of genius, wanting more because what you had was so small (sort of like the second series of Heroes, but I digress).

Eventually after three days we learn what is happening. Great in film time where days can pass in minutes not in "real time". Waiting three hours for some sort of logical story is not thrilling or dramatically interesting. It's boring.

Keeping your leads in the dark is a good way to keep things dramatically interesting. Keeping you in the dark builds tension. Both, at the same time? You end up shouting at the screen for something, anything. The smallest morsel of plot. Development, something other than the government acting like collective arseholes.

So in the last hour or so we get it. One massive roller-coaster of plot twists, life changing decisions and break neck turns. Lets look at them:-

Killing Ianto. After the most useless character (introduced as some sort of unrealised homosexual foil for Jack's libido) became one of the best and most well liked they kill him in this. I know the writer was probably aiming for a Doyle (from Angel) like sacrifice but it felt more like Tara from Buffy. I can't think of a single Buffy fan that didn't like the stuttering, shy, lesbian witch. She was brilliant and the actress pulled it off brilliantly. The same can be said for Ianto, after the first season. Everyone thought it was a bad idea to kill off Tara, despite the massive bucket load of character development you got out of it. Ianto's death did nothing, nothing that couldn't be achieved elsewhere. Slap bang at the end of episode 4 he dies from a virus. Showing us what would happen if they don't give in to the alien demands. Yes it illustrates a point, but the same could be done with the death of everyone in the building but Ianto and Jack. Jack's later angst could have been achieved with continuing development of everyone involved. Ianto's death was pointless and should never have happened. Simple as that.

Steven, Jack's grandson, again dying. In the constrains of the plot it made sense. It's a wonderfully dramatic moment and it should have been interesting. Instead it fell short on two points. The first was we've only just met this kid and there's been so little about him we don't know or care. He's been a background character all five hours and when he was on screen he was a millstone around Jack's neck. Next when you sacrifice one person for thousands, mathematically it works. This is true, however morally it is wrong. To correct this problem would have taken all of one scene. It would have been an emotional kick in the teeth and need some good acting. In summery Steven knows what is happening and what is being asked of him. With tears in his eyes he agrees to die. A willing sacrifice. All the moral problems are solved and it would resonate through out the whole dam show.

Finally Jack Harkness. This man has lived for how long now? I'm only 23 but I know that running away from your problems never solve them. Just leaves them to fester. Deal with an "issue" as soon as they come up and you can move on. Otherwise you're stuck in a never ending cycle. Or to put it simply:- 'You can't run away from your problems.' So what does Jack try and do? Run away from his problems. What a idiot.

Torchwood, like every product of a hackneyed writer in the history of speculative fiction, pulls out the death card whenever any sort of development is needed. Life is far more than that, go out live something... anything! I don't really care as long as the Grim Reaper can have a holiday.

So what did I learn from Torchwood Children of Earth. Quite a bit actually. From a writers stand point I learnt what not to do and how not to do it. From a moral standpoint I learnt all the wrong lessons and finally I learnt that if you're a government official you are selfish, egotistical and only out for your own back, but I knew all that already.

If I had to give it a score it would have to be 2 out of 5. The acting was good, the effects top notch and as always some character development. Just the over all plot and it's titanic holes that you fall through. Early on I would defend Russell T. Davis because the characters were good, they sucked you in and suspension of disbelief was easy. Unfortunately that isn't the case anymore and I'm glad he's left Dr Who. Roll on next year and it's fresh outlook.