I don’t like Dark Water/Death in Heaven, but I find it hard to work out why. The direction is good and occasionally striking, with some good cinematography. The acting is fine, with Michelle Gomez being quite disturbing in places as Missy. The idea of a hyperactive childish ‘kerazy’ Master has never entirely sat well with me (I prefer the quiet, sinister presence of a Roger Delgado or a Geoffrey Beevers), but if you are going down this route, Gomez was much more disturbing and convincing than John Simm.
The script is more problematic. The plot, about zombie Cybermen pollinating across Earth, is silly, but no more so than a lot of Doctor Who, or most of this season, which delighted in throwing the most bizarre ideas at us. There isn’t actually much substance to the plot; like a lot of new Who, it’s involved in a frantic rush from set piece to set piece without much actual exploration or discovery, but again, this is symptomatic of new Who as a whole. The story is rather bleak, but so are stories like The Caves of Androzani and Heaven Sent that I like a lot.
The story does eventually resolve the season’s “Am I a good man?” arc by deciding the Doctor is an idiot helping out and learning, not a good man, a bad man, a hero, a president or an officer, but it’s interesting that I completely forgot that, having twice seen the episode before – it drifts down in the mix and gets lost. It doesn’t help that none of the Doctors are really idiots. Part of the problem is that we know the Doctor too well by this stage to really make us think that he is a bad man, although we have been alienated by stories that portrayed him as a rude and unpleasant man. This is the same mistake that was made with the sixth Doctor’s first season and it’s surprising to see Steven Moffat making it again.
I’m not offended by the dark subject matter, or the stuff about cremations or the concept of an afterlife apparently being made up by the Master. The death of Osgood was sad, but was never intended to be permanent. So is it just the cumulative effect of all these little things that annoy me a bit that stops me liking the story? Is it just one of those stories that presses a lot of my buttons? It is hard to tell. Certainly I prefer emotional subtlety, which we don’t always get with new Who and which we certainly don’t get here. I will always prefer something like the underplayed relationship between Professor Palmer and Emma in Hide to the tearful goodbyes here.
As someone who does not celebrate Christmas, I’m always wary of commenting on Christmas specials, as I’m not really in the audience and watching Last Christmas at midday in an August heat wave does not really encourage the necessary atmosphere. It is a fairly involving and in places slightly horrific story, somewhat sentimental, but arguably more justifiably so than Death in Heaven. Steven Moffat uses the special as a coda to the previous season finale and a breathing space to allow for characterisation rather than making it an epic event in its own right, a technique he would later take even further with Twice Upon a Time.
It’s funny in parts, scary in parts, silly in parts, sad in parts, which is probably what was required. I found it hard to get involved on repeated viewing knowing what was ‘real’ which is not a problem I have with Amy’s Choice and I’m not quite sure why that was. Perhaps there isn’t much to this other than the dream within a dream gimmick, at least if you aren’t invested in the Clara/Danny relationship, and I’m not.
Nick Frost is credited in the opening titles, which probably makes Dream Santa technically a companion, at least in the ‘one story companion’ sense that Adelaide Brooke, Lady Christina de Souza and the like are considered by some fans, although it was Shona who proved the surprise hit with fandom, probably largely on the basis of her fearlessly geeky dance routine at the start. (‘One story companion’ has always seemed vaguely like an oxymoron to me.) And I did like the joke about Alien although as with similar jokes later in Capaldi’s tenure, you have to wonder about the Doctor’s pop cultural knowledge, which seems either ridiculously detailed or utterly non-existent, depending on what type of joke the writers are aiming for.
 One thing that has really struck me watching all of Doctor Who in order again is how little exploration and deduction the modern Doctors do when compared to the stories of the sixties and seventies. When you get an episode like The Long Game (originally pitched in the late eighties) or Fear Her, with a lot of investigation and deduction, it stands out. And far from exploring new planets, the Doctor always seems to be trying to take his companions to places he’s visited before, although he doesn’t always succeed.
I guess partly from lack of time and partly to make the Doctor seem even more amazing (new Who spends a lot of time telling us how amazing and all-powerful the Doctor is) he usually knows everything straight off. Even when he does make a deduction, it’s often based on something already known to him, but not to us, like the significance of the sevens and the Shakri in The Power of Three. Even when the Doctor doesn’t know what’s going on, he has to know something in advance. In A Town Called Mercy the Doctor is taken by surprise by street lights that are ahead of their time and makes some deductions… but as soon as Kahler-Jex appears, he’s babbling on about how great the Kahler are because he already knows of them. I feel something has been lost. The Doctor has become an explorer who never explores, who seems to know almost everything in advance in a series that used to be at least vaguely about empiricism. This isn’t quite unique to new Who as the sixth and seventh Doctors had similar troubles at times, but with the latter at least it was part of a radical reimagining of the programme. This just seems like laziness.