"The Aztecs" has an unbelievably good reputation amongst Doctor Who fans. It is praised for quality characterization, thrilling drama, and other things. I have seen "The Aztecs" nearly fifteen times since its initial video release and have always wondered what everyone saw in it. It's certainly not bad by any means but I find the characters flat and one-dimensional, the companions used rather predictably, and outside of the wonderful visual qualities- the sets and costuming especially, really just a solid but completely unremarkable Doctor Who story.
John Lucarotti's "Marco Polo" is an absolutely excellent Doctor Who story. It is wonderfully well-written with a group of interesting and varied supporting characters. Still, its strength primarily lies in its characters and dialogue, not in its plot or the quality of the drama (which in "Marco Polo" is only dramatic due to the characters, the novelization of the same story is really very boring due to the same characters being poorly-written). Take excellent characterization and dialogue out of a John Lucarotti script and you end up with something like "The Aztecs": watchable, entertaining for the most part, but completely forgettable and to be honest, at just four parts in length, not very tightly-woven at all.
In fact, I find "The Aztecs" begins to drag quite a bit in its latter half as it moves toward its inevitable, obvious, and unbelievably predictable conclusion. The villain gets more cookie-cutter villain-ish than he already was and the emphasis on the actual plot becomes stronger. The first two episodes weren't great by any means but they were really rather good, fun episodes as we discovered the situation at hand. The rest of the story is really just 'above average'.
I'm sure I come off as hating "The Aztecs". I really don't. I just find it to be one of my biggest disagreements with Doctor Who fandom, and a solid but completely unremarkable tale from start to finish. Wonderful design, solid direction, and excellent acting. The rest I don't think is especially worth discussing at length.
Episode 1: 7/10, Episode 2: 7/10, Episode 3: 6/10, Episode 4: 6/10.
Average: 6.5/10
John Lucarotti's "Marco Polo" is an absolutely excellent Doctor Who story. It is wonderfully well-written with a group of interesting and varied supporting characters. Still, its strength primarily lies in its characters and dialogue, not in its plot or the quality of the drama (which in "Marco Polo" is only dramatic due to the characters, the novelization of the same story is really very boring due to the same characters being poorly-written). Take excellent characterization and dialogue out of a John Lucarotti script and you end up with something like "The Aztecs": watchable, entertaining for the most part, but completely forgettable and to be honest, at just four parts in length, not very tightly-woven at all.
In fact, I find "The Aztecs" begins to drag quite a bit in its latter half as it moves toward its inevitable, obvious, and unbelievably predictable conclusion. The villain gets more cookie-cutter villain-ish than he already was and the emphasis on the actual plot becomes stronger. The first two episodes weren't great by any means but they were really rather good, fun episodes as we discovered the situation at hand. The rest of the story is really just 'above average'.
I'm sure I come off as hating "The Aztecs". I really don't. I just find it to be one of my biggest disagreements with Doctor Who fandom, and a solid but completely unremarkable tale from start to finish. Wonderful design, solid direction, and excellent acting. The rest I don't think is especially worth discussing at length.
Episode 1: 7/10, Episode 2: 7/10, Episode 3: 6/10, Episode 4: 6/10.
Average: 6.5/10