Before The Flood
Home › Forums › Episodes › The Twelfth Doctor › Before The Flood
This topic contains 295 replies, has 46 voices, and was last updated by 
-
AuthorPosts
-
11 October 2015 at 19:20 #44501
Tivoli? Why do I keep thinking Livonian? Brain glitch!
Whatever. I think that the Tivoli dressing as a Victorian undertaker is a bad, weak choice.
11 October 2015 at 19:31 #44502I too was a bit irritated by the preamble via the fourth wall – as if, after all the looping timey=wimeyness of the last few seasons, we would be incapable of following the moebius logic of a bootstrap paradox without a big signpost to direct us.
You have captured my concerns in a far more elegant fashion that I could.
I also agree with @arbutus that it “felt cerebral rather than emotive”.
But nonetheless, there were things I quite liked, beyond the nuanced performances of the members of the crew. One was the fact that the Doctor was willing to sacrifice O’Donnell in order to test his theory, as Bennett rightly accuses him of doing. The Doctor does not deny it. This gave him a steely resolve that had echoes of Hartnell. It was something I thought worked quite well.
11 October 2015 at 19:59 #44504@lisa Half-faced man was dressed in late nineteenth century style, it’s true, but then Deep Breath was set sometime in the 1880s, judging by the style of the women’s dresses, so it was in keeping – certainly not as anachronistic and out of place as the costume appropriate to an undertaker of that period would be on for a newly arrived alien from Tivoli on a derelict military base in the 1980s, even if the alien was an undertaker of sorts. Prentis’s outfit was specifically that of an undertaker, – the crepe sash around the top hat in particular was part of their formal get-up when officiating at funerals -whereas that of half-faced man, as far as I can recall, conformed more or less to normal city wear for a gentleman of those days.
11 October 2015 at 19:59 #44505@pedant Putting our guesses out there before we know if we are right, that’s gutsy. Bragging rights when we nail it, that’s the prize. 🙂
@craig Perhaps those who always threatened to never watch again have actually decided to never watch again. This made me laugh. Would that it were true.
@phaseshift Yes, I forgot to include Prentis in my list of bits I liked. I missed the “apprentice” link though, but I’m sure you’re right, it’s no coincidence. I also liked the confrontation with the Fisher King. I have a fondness for those moments in DW when some alien bad guy trash talks the Doctor, and then addresses him knowingly as “Time Lord”, and we all go “oooh”. 🙂
@bluesqueakpip You know, I really like the video diary idea. 🙂
@juniperfish Interesting point re the Doctor/Fisher King parallels.
@craig There is definitely a different tone to the Doctor/Clara relationship this series. More confidence in a sense, but also, more brittleness. She said, I think, “If you ever loved me…” or words to that effect, and “you owe me”, which she has said before. He was quite up front about his willingness to mess with the rules for Clara’s sake. I wonder if he feels a sense of guilt over the conclusion of her relationship with Danny that will ultimately become intolerable to him?
@ichabod And given that she’s a bootstrap paradox, where the heck can she be going? Maybe back in time to become her own mother? 🙂
Also, I agree with your reminder that Clara did, indeed, choose Danny over the Doctor. As most companions have, in the end, chosen to leave.
@miapatrick Yes, I was thinking that too, a little surprised that she made him ask: Tell him about the different words!
It occurs to me also that, contrary to some fears after last week, Cass’s deafness did not prove to be intrinsic to the plot. The lipreading of course was woven in, but the story could have been made to work without it if necessary. So the deafness really felt just like a thing, rather than a plot point. Nice.
Also, I thought the guitar version of the theme was fun. I rather like the idea of messing with the theme a bit from time to time. But I no more expect it to be permanent than I believe that sonic screwdriver won’t be back!
11 October 2015 at 20:38 #44507@mudlark Yes just saying the costumes are extremely similar on 2 characters
so it was probably an opportunity to re use a good costume.
picture of each:http://www.therobotsvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/halfface.png
11 October 2015 at 20:54 #44508Anonymous @
I signed up to this forum in order to express my negative feelings about the new series. I haven’t managed yet to watch a full episode in entirety – I feel saddened by the poor production values, poor acting acting performances, dire casting and embarrassing narcisstic rock guitar trivialisation of a great British institution . I went to the trouble of finding this forum and registering my details. I expected to find a polemic debate -with some still supporting Moffat and others not. But what I’ve found is a forum void of any dissent – all opinion is positive or pettily questioning minor points. So..since my opinions will clearly not be tolerated, can anyone tell me how I can find a forum for me to express my views?
11 October 2015 at 21:14 #44509Prentis’s outfit was specifically that of an undertaker
His costume isn’t actually that far out of its time – the only thing you couldn’t see in a modern funeral is the black ribbon trail on the rear of the hat. I suspect it’s simply a case of the alien dressing appropriately but getting it slightly wrong.
Bit like the Doctor, really. 😉
11 October 2015 at 21:27 #44510@denvaldron Thank you — that analysis gives lots to think about.
@arbutus I feel the same way about this casual tossing out of possible future companions — and of perfectly inoffensive DW fans! What gives, here? A weird hostility vibe, or what?
11 October 2015 at 21:38 #44511@sarah-jane109 Oh, that’s very funny. Thank you for making me laugh while I was thinking about having to go to work tomorrow. You have brightened my evening.
As you haven’t expressed any views on this site so far, you seem quick to judge. But if you’re just looking for forums that don’t like Doctor Who, why not try one for fans of “My Little Pony”? Or maybe a forum for fans of “Mad Men”? Pick any forum about a show other than “Doctor Who” and I’m sure you’ll find people who don’t like “Doctor Who”.
It’s not time travel science!
11 October 2015 at 21:46 #44512@sarah-jane109 Sorry you aren’t enjoying the series so far. But I’m not sure why you feel you can’t say that here. If you have been reading people’s comments you will see that there are certainly members who disagree with one another. There are definitely people here who prefer the RTD era, and there have even been comments suggesting preference for the show of the sixties and seventies. Just because others then come back to debate with them, doesn’t mean that those opinions “won’t be tolerated”. You don’t seem to have posted any views yet, so how do you know?
Certainly some people have said that they don’t like things like the guitar-playing, or the sunglasses. Pop culture references aren’t popular with everyone. I don’t mind those things, I think they’re fun. I don’t agree about the acting, I think it’s been fabulous. Not being British, I rarely have the previous knowledge of the actors that a lot of people here have, so it’s a little like a blind taste test for me!
As for other forums, I don’t post anywhere else so I can’t advise. People here are nice to me even when they don’t agree with me, and that is pretty important to me! People here (on the whole) also tend to choose their words with some care, which I value. Smart people here, I don’t think along the same lines as everyone, but they always give me lots to think about. I get more out of the episodes after reading what people have come here to say.
11 October 2015 at 21:54 #44513I should also add to the above, that I have been thinking lately about how much TV has changed in recent years. This is the first show that I have regularly watched that actually requires a second viewing to get everything you can out of it. I know that there are other shows out there like that, but I don’t happen to watch them. But it seems to me that Moffat’s DW is a show that is designed for the world of internet viewing. I find that rather cool.
11 October 2015 at 22:12 #44514@denvaldron I think that the Tivoli dressing as a Victorian undertaker is a bad, weak choice.
In terms of sense, yes; in terms of the visual effect, wonderful, particularly the sly suggestion of that sort of Dickensian hypocrisy and general deceptiveness in the interests of genteel appearances. Loved it!
@blenkinsopthebrave the Doctor was willing to sacrifice O’Donnell in order to test his theory, as Bennett rightly accuses him of doing. The Doctor does not deny it. This gave him a steely resolve that had echoes of Hartnell. It was something I thought worked quite well.
Nicely spotted — I’d overlooked that. I wish the Doctor had been a bit more confrontational about it, though — but he did grapple with the issue in MotOE, so . . . okay.
@arbutus He was quite up front about his willingness to mess with the rules for Clara’s sake. I wonder if he feels a sense of guilt over the conclusion of her relationship with Danny that will ultimately become intolerable to him?
That may depend on whether Missy is implicated in some way in Danny’s death, I think. We don’t know for certain that she didn’t engineer it, in order to kick Clara into getting the Doctor to the Nethersphere.
Also, She said, I think, “If you ever loved me…” I think it was “If you ever loved me in any way — ” Very loaded, if you look at it. That she should put it in the past tense (“ever loved me”) and with such a conditional phrase — what a smack on the nose for the Clara/12 shippers, of whom there are many (they’re on tumblr, and thrive on an imagined primarily sexual relationship, whether externalized or not, between these two characters)! But also another indicator of Clara’s state of mind, and the Doctor’s distraction from her now, as opposed to S8 when she was front, center, and dominant in his awareness most of the time. Now, in s9, she seems deeply uncertain about her standing with, let alone her centrality to, the Doctor — and scared to death of disappearing from his view except as a possession he owns, is fond of, and makes use of as logistical back up and partner, but that’s it.
I think she’s right to worry; and I worry about both of them and the outcome of the inevitable crunch.
@bluesqueakpip I suspect it’s simply a case of the alien dressing appropriately but getting it slightly wrong.
Bit like the Doctor, really.Oh, perfect — !
@sara-jane109 But what I’ve found is a forum void of any dissent – all opinion is positive or pettily questioning minor points. So..since my opinions will clearly not be tolerated, can anyone tell me how I can find a forum for me to express my views?
Speaking strictly for myself, I feel a bit saddened for you. I’d say you’re right — the views you came to express are unlikely to find reenforcement here, although from what I’ve seen, “being tolerated” isn’t really an issue unless you’re actively abusive about it. Being comfortable here is something else again, and angry posters do drift through here from time to time looking for chorus-mates, and, not finding them, move on.
I suggest that you go to the Guardian comments below episode reviews, or one of the DW discussions on reddit.com (heavy negativity tends to shift between the “Gallifrey” list and the “doctorwho” list on reddit, so try both; oh, and “doctorwhocirclejerk” seems to consist of a dozen or so haters each trying to outdo the others in spitefulness, but I think that’s maybe on tumblr, which also has “STFUmoffat”, another haters list). I’m sure your own non-petty “questions” (“hate the production values, acting, casting, dramatic choices, etc.”) will find a warm welcome somewhere in there, or in adjacent pools of venom.
11 October 2015 at 22:22 #44515@arbutus I have been thinking lately about how much TV has changed in recent years. This is the first show that I have regularly watched that actually requires a second viewing to get everything you can out of it. I know that there are other shows out there like that, but I don’t happen to watch them. But it seems to me that Moffat’s DW is a show that is designed for the world of internet viewing. I find that rather cool.
That’s what I absolutely love about it: the invitation to explore beyond the on-the-face-of-it story of the week. But I think that’s also *exactly* what one wing of the hater-corps finds so objectionable — that DW has become more challenging, to meet the rising expectations of a pretty darn smart viewing audience. Haters tend to yap on forever about “lazy writing”, when what they should be thinking about — particularly when faced with S8 on — is lazy viewing: demanding that everything be slapped onto your plate for you to scarf up without a thought.
Yeah; re-watching is cool! And writing for people willing or even eager for the treasures yielded up by an in-depth approach is even cooler . . . I wonder if all this started way back with “Twin Peaks” — anybody remember that show? And some other rather devious and deliberately obscured shows that proved unstable outliers since, like that one about the traveling carnival in Depression Era America, or poor old “Lost” . . .
11 October 2015 at 22:25 #44516I don’t like plastic creatures, but except that, that was bloody brilliant. The last season was a big disappointment for me, but this one is great so far. I had a problem with Clara. I couldn’t like her but now I know the real problem was the Doctor. He was hesitant, moody and full of doubts but now he is just what the true Doctor should be (for me of course). I usually listen to the new episode without watching it for the second time so kudos for great dialogs and music.
11 October 2015 at 22:32 #44517@ichabod You’re welcome.
11 October 2015 at 22:35 #44518@ichabod You’re right, there was an element of that with Twin Peaks, although I doubt that the theorists were ever able to out-bonkers what the actual writers of that show came up with! (Incidentally, I still remember being floored by the fabulous opening episode of that show, the layers of event and emotion and the beautiful way they were presented. In some ways, nothing that came afterward ever really lived up to that beginning, for me.)
But I was always able to keep up, even though I was viewing it in the traditional way, on first airing, once a week, no do-overs. What happens on DW nowadays I don’t think can be properly absorbed without the ability to re-watch. At least, not by me. I generally absorb things on a more emotional the first time through, and the second viewing allows me to be more analytical. Aided, of course, by the people on this forum, because I tend to a more straightforward interpretation of things on my own. For example, the tarot card stuff that people have been discussing is looking increasingly relevant, although earlier I would have dismissed it as coincidence. But Moffat is all about mythology, as we know, and tarot would seem to be another form of that, so why not? Would I have thought of that on my own? Never in a million years.
11 October 2015 at 22:48 #44519@arbutus Sometimes though a cigar is a cigar. And Bismark suggested that politics is like sausages, in that we shouldn’t examine the makings two closely. Same goes for film making. Quite often serendipity and circumstance are behind what we consider art.
11 October 2015 at 22:52 #44521I’ve been thinking about these Tarot associations.
In the Arthur legend when the Fisher king gets wounded the life force is
drained out of him. This alien drained the life force out of people.
Also, in the Tarot this card is associated with water and the alien
died in a watery grave.Loving all these mythology interpretations in the series lots!
11 October 2015 at 23:04 #44522Going back to the episode opening: while I understood entirely the point the Doctor was making with his story, the phrase “bootstrap paradox” was new to me; so I have, as the Doctor advised, googled it. I’ve read a fairish bit of Heinlein, but not the story referenced by that phrase, so I am happy to be more informed!
But in thinking about the causal loop, it reminded me of Orson Pink and Dan the Soldier Man. I have never believed that this was a thread that Moffat was planning to drop, and I wonder if there is a clue here to the truth about Orson?
11 October 2015 at 23:06 #44523@denvaldron 🙂 Yes, well, speaking as someone whose significant other is now employed by a company involved in the sausage biz, I can say that principle is sound.
Seriously, I don’t actually think that Moffat sat down and asked himself, “What thematic ideas can I mine from the Tarot?” More that those underlying themes are present in lots of mythologies, and different people have probably encountered them somewhere, and thus they are present in the inner workings of many writers, to be included for tastiness like a fresh head of garlic.
11 October 2015 at 23:16 #44525@arbutus I must humbly disagree. I think that since series 8 SM has been
diligently mining myths, fairy tales, tarot etc. for effect. It all reinforces
all his messaging towards the over all story arc. Furthermore, he seems to
have extensive knowledge about all of this stuff and I bet he has been having
lots of fun incorporating all of it into these episodes.11 October 2015 at 23:31 #44527Yes, I was noticing that with last week’s prompt cards for the Doctor and this week’s funeral director card. Both of them written and shot on the assumption that people can and will rewatch – and are easily able to pause and check out little details.
And the entire two-parter really is written on the assumption that you might want to go back to Part 1 after watching Part 2.
Catering to fans? Or an acknowledgement that this show is supposed to be fun? We’re watching for fun, we’re discussing bonkers theories for fun, and sometimes the cast and crew are adding in those little details because it’s fun.
I bet they enjoyed writing the cue cards (‘I’m sorry I should have known you didn’t live in Aberdeen’ indeed!) 🙂
11 October 2015 at 23:37 #4452911 October 2015 at 23:42 #44530Before I get into what I thought about the episode proper, I want to mention the introduction.
It’s effectively the same thing as the introduction to Witch’s Familiar (Missy talking about the Doctor escaping the androids): a key concept to the episode is apparently deemed too complicated for pudding-brained viewers to understand if it were just mentioned in context, so the time is taken to explain it slowly to the audience via a big, pretty analogy.
They’re not quite the same; Missy gives her explanation to Clara within the narrative, though the entire point of it is very obviously to talk to the audience, while the Doctor outright breaks the fourth wall and is completely separated from the narrative; and where Missy introduces an arguably new or unfamiliar concept (recharging teleporter via weapons) and a new way of looking at the Doctor, the concept that’s apparently too complicated for us to understand in Flood is a very common one in Who. Causal loops with no clear beginning like this one happen frequently and are either handwaved away, or more often ignored completely. Why bring attention to it here, when it’s no more important to the plot than on any of those other occasions, just a side note at the end? Does this mean the concept will be referenced again in the series, in a plot-relevant way?I had thought Under the Lake was near perfect, but unfortunately this second half didn’t live up to it for me- similarly to Apprentice and Familiar, it was certainly good but with a number of misfires. It just didn’t have the same kind of narrative tightness or excitement, and felt a bit more distracted- maybe because there wasn’t actually that much to the core plot and resolution in this episode, good and clever and timey-wimey though it was, it was sure predicted by enough people.
Good bits, the core plot was fine, and turning the two-parter on its head by going back in time was a nice change; the design and physical realisation of the Fisher King was very cool; some good character bits in general; Cass and the ground vibrations (even if she didn’t just turn around), and so on.
Less good bits:
– The Beethoven 5 on guitar moment is one of the most godawfully cringeworthy things I’ve ever seen on Doctor Who… I’ll refrain from saying more.
– The Doctor’s inevitable death, part MCCXIII. Apart from happening in two stories in a row now, this doesn’t make sense. Yes, he’s seen his ghost and knows it must occur, like reading about Amy in the book. But like his death at Silencio, and like the destruction of Gallifrey, he also knows that what he’s seen doesn’t necessarily have to be what it seems. It makes no sense for him to immediately accept it as death despite his myriad experiences that inform him of other ways. The whole “rewrite time/I can’t” also rings hollow when it’s been brought up and disobeyed so many times. Yes, he gets his groove back pretty quickly. But the writer is specifically casting aside the characters’ logic and experience for a scene in order to wring an emotional expected death scene out of the script.
– Speaking of wringing emotional scenes out of the script, Cass/Lunn and O’Donnell/Bennett. It’s like in most films, where if there’s a male and female lead regardless of genre, there MUST be romance. Any group of people working together, any possible hetero pairs MUST be in love. It gets a bit silly, seeing as, you know, it is possible for people to interact with each other without falling head over heels, or even for people to interact with some degree of subtlety. While it’s nice in the way it highlights Clara’s loneliness, the sudden, last-minute Cass/Lunn “just tell her you love her” is straight Disney.
– Prentis, eh. As above, like there doesn’t always need to be an obvious romance, there doesn’t always need to be an obvious comic relief. Just a bit jarring.
– Would have been interesting to see more/hear more from the Fisher King beyond “I’m a stranded bad guy”. It did all go quite quickly.– I assume the Doctor was able to do figure out some stuff on the ship in the past, in order to find out how to wipe the message from their brains.
– How did the Doctor program the hologram in 1980 when the Drum wasn’t there yet?11 October 2015 at 23:45 #44531@lisa That may be true. It wouldn’t surprise me if it were; equally, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear him say, “Oh, cool, I hadn’t actually thought of that. I was actually channelling …” Some other source. Myself, I don’t have a strong view either way. 🙂
12 October 2015 at 00:31 #44534@Supernumerary re. programming the hologram. The Doctor said it was the sonic sunglasses and that they connected to the bases wifi when the stasis pod thing was brought in.
Oh and hi everyone, I’m new here 🙂
12 October 2015 at 00:52 #44535@Supernumerary
Why bring attention to it here
Bit of a bonkers theory here, but I think the point that needed bringing to our attention was a point people do often miss. Namely, a causal loop is capable of spontaneously creating something without a creator. And it’s not just ideas that can be spontaneously created within the loop; physical objects can also have no beginning and no end.
And Clara is the result of a causal loop. She caused herself. Further, we never saw her mother pregnant, and we never saw any hospital scene or photos of a newborn baby Clara in the hospital. We first see Clara at home, with Dad, as an obviously not newborn baby.
Now, Clara apparently thinks that she caused her own conception, that she has a beginning (just one she caused). But suppose she didn’t? Suppose she’s Beethoven’s Fifth, or the Fez in Day of the Doctor? Suppose, like that music, or that fez, she has no real beginning? She just is.
Why bring a massive amount of attention to the loop? Because people mostly didn’t get the fez, and they really struggled with the causal loop in The Big Bang. They can follow it, but many people don’t understand it. If the Causal Loop is about to become a major plot point, it needed a full-on backstory exposition speech.
12 October 2015 at 01:09 #44536Because people mostly didn’t get the fez, and they really struggled with the causal loop in The Big Bang
I’m not sure about “most” but “many” I’d certainly concur with (although let’s not also forget that the Doctor came into existence because Amy wished very very hard. I don’t think Moffat is in any way pursuing a fatalistic vision).
12 October 2015 at 01:14 #44537@bluesqueakpip: A causal loop should be a mainstream idea by now considering it was a major plot point of the movie Interstellar …
12 October 2015 at 01:19 #44538Haven’t actually watched Interstellar …. 😈
Seriously, having wasted an awful lot of time trying to explain time paradoxes to people wedded to a linear view of time, my experience is that many people just plain don’t get them.
12 October 2015 at 01:24 #44539I’m more trying to understand the stories of the Fourth Doctor and how time works. Back then both the Doctor and the Time Lords in Genesis of the Daleks seemed to think he could change the Daleks past, perhaps even wipe them out, and the Doctor and the Jagaroth in City of Death seemed to think it was possible the Jagaroth could save his ship to prevent the creation of complex life on Earth.
12 October 2015 at 01:30 #44540@Supernumerary
Yes, I think that the manner in which they gave us the causal loop clue in the intro was meant to turn it into a sort of super clue. (I rather suspect that @bluesqueakpip‘s theory is correct.) It also meant that we were thinking about causal loops all the time we were watching the episode. I’ll have to keep this in mind on my second viewing, to see if it enlightens me. It’s less clear to me why they also felt the need to have the Doctor recap the concept at the end of the episode. If we’re going to complain about unnecessary exposition, it would probably be the second one I would complain about.
I don’t agree with you on the issue of romance, partly because I just don’t see that we have been given this over and over, as you suggest. We’ve been introduced to lots of people working together in groups without any hint of romance. In this case, I thought that the bond between Cass and Lunn was especially clear, although nicely understated until the end. And clearly the reason for the double hit of romance was to direct us toward Clara’s situation. This was just about the only place in the episode that, for me on first viewing, pointed clearly at a series arc. Her advice to Bennett, and his advice to Lunn, are there to demonstrate that Clara is not happy, Clara is making the best of a situation but it is clearly not what she wanted. In fact, I wonder if Clara is actually turning herself into the Doctor because, lacking Danny, she can no longer be Clara?
I knew immediately that certain elements of this story were going to be divisive. I liked the guitar, because I thought it demonstrated the Doctor’s playful side. Just as I enjoyed the Doctor playing football in The Lodger, as one of many previous examples. Matt Smith could handle a ball, so they let him. Jon Pertwee liked motor vehicles, so they gave them to him. Capaldi can play the guitar, so put one in his TARDIS and let him rock out a bit. Why not? But it clearly won’t appeal to everyone.
12 October 2015 at 01:38 #44541@jphamlore I would think that, just because those people thought they could go back and change history, doesn’t mean they actually could do it, and do it successfully. Look what happened when River tried not to kill the Doctor. 🙂
Also, I would add my caveat to @bluesqueakpip‘s, that just because a popular film deals with an idea, doesn’t mean everyone watching DW has seen. I did see it, but only because I happened to be on an airplane where it was available.
And, judging from the commentary on the Guardian, awareness of the concept doesn’t lead to understanding or agreement on how the concept played out. In fact, I may just have answered my own question about the need for the Doctor’s explanation at the end. Because now there is at least one thing that has been clearly stated– that the Doctor only acted because he told himself to act (in a sense) and not because he “thought it up” at any point. Even thinking you understand the basic concept of a causal loop might not make that clear!
12 October 2015 at 01:49 #44542On exposition.
One of the side-effects of me being transient for the fat end of half a year (and so not in a position to do anything especially productive) was using my cousins’ Netflix account to binge watch a few American series that I might not have bothered with otherwise.
One of the things that is really noticeable about network shows (rather than cable) is the constant insertion of expository dialogue just to remind viewers what happened the previous week. I mean sentence of a sort that no human would ever utter for fear of sounding like Cletus The Slack Jawed Yokel stupider cousin, but which are fine coming from the lips of a fictional lawyer/ cop/ teacher/ high school senior(1).
While I sort of understand why cautious networks do this, it really is writing for the slowest kid in the classroom. I’m more a Maggie Walsh “Talk fast, set a lot of work and expect you to keep up” kind a chap.
And it is not as if breaking the fourth wall is a new device. In the mid-1980s Moonlighting blew our socks off (and made a star of Bruce Willis) the moment he winked at the camera and spoke to the viewer (singular – that’s the key). From House of Cards, through Hustle to House of Lies, we really should barely even notice it these days. And, of course, William Hartnell famously did it on Who. It’s canon, and that is all the wriggle room anyone needs.
And it is so much better than having a character say words to the effect of: “Isn’t that the guy we saw when we went to the art show on B’s birthday a few weeks ago when that big storm hit and knocked the sheriffs car off the road, just before the power lines came down and we got lost in the zoo?”
Of course, as a device it has a history as long as storytelling. That’s why it is called storytelling and not storyshowing.
(1) Notwithstanding this, Pretty Little Liars is a surprisingly good study in how to spin out a shaggy dog story beyond the high concept, relying only occasionally on Plot Demanded Stupidity, or the Sod It Let’s Make X Stupid Rather Than Smart But A Bit Gauche, We Can Reset Later ploy (or the At Some Point Every Character in Battlestar Galactica ploy, to give the SF variant). What I like about Moffat – and, of course, Whedon – is that his characters generally change for a reason, not because the plot demands it).
12 October 2015 at 02:02 #44543@mersey I usually listen to the new episode without watching it for the second time so kudos for great dialogs and music.
That sounds like an excellent idea; must try it.
@arbutus I wonder if Clara is actually turning herself into the Doctor because, lacking Danny, she can no longer be Clara?
I’d say so; Clara-the-human (Coal Hill School, gramma, pretty girl who could have any guy she wanted if she’d noticed anyone but Danny and the Doctor) is just going through the motions now, I think, so Doctor Clara — capable adventurer, take-charge crisis manager, quick-thinking danger dodger — is her only clear path. But it’s a dead end — she can try to be the Doctor, but she can’t really be him; so no, she doesn’t have a clear view of what she wants either, so we also can’t see it.
I like the Doctor with his guitar, but as a rule I enjoy seeing new facets of an old, established character. It’s life-like. The regular people I know stay the same at the core, but develop new facets as they age (and if they’re lucky enough to have that potential + circumstances that can bring it to blossom). I like my fictional icons with that spark of life in them.
12 October 2015 at 02:07 #44544The ‘Impossible Astronaut’ and “Day of the Moon” made a great loop involving River. That was
when I realized that the Doctor could skillfully manipulate loops. Then there was the “Big Bang”
which was when the Tardis went into a time loop to save River. This was an important part of loop
education for River too. She’s the original “loopy’ girl. Now we all know that River will be
reappearing after Clara leaves. She told the Doctor in ‘Name of the Doctor” that she was connected
to Clara. Plus we continue to be teased with more loops. In season 8 we had Dan the soldier
man toy loop that made me dizzy. Then the current episode.
Anyway, I know some of us have the theory that Clara will be an epic loop of River’s making.
River has been always committed to saving the Doctor. Clara was also born to save the Doctor.In ‘Fires of Pompeii” it was Donna’s insistence that the Doctor save just 1 family. He faced
a moral dilemma. He faced another moral dilemma regarding the death of O’Donnell. I think that
goes to the reason he has this face. To recall the moral dilemmas of his actions because it could
involve him on a very personal levelwith his own family. I think we got a teasing of that in the
current episode in that phone conversation with Clara. She is surely family to him.So I’m sure River has been meddling with time loops.
But the mystery is still in knowing how she’s dome it!12 October 2015 at 02:28 #44546@purofilion I read the Dan Martin Blog which was great. In that, he had a link to Bootstrap -a 13 mins short film but it wasn’t in English, so ahem, having no attention span, I stopped it. Did anyone persist? Is it helpful to Clara and her continuing story?
I couldn’t make head nor tail of the clip, and stopped watching. But I think the point is, as others have noted that these loops seem to have no identifiable beginnings, which can get lost in the dizzying factor of events once started going round and round. Which reminds me — does a causal loop have an end? Apparently it does, since the Doctor isn’t forced to continue shuttling back and forth here, but how can just going around once end something that’s 100% momentum of some kind, with no starting place to be satisfactorily completed?
Does that question even make sense?
12 October 2015 at 02:32 #44547@lisa River will be reappearing after Clara leaves. She told the Doctor in ‘Name of the Doctor” that she was connected to Clara.
But MissMaster is connected to Clara too, having “chosen” her somehow? And I thought I was confused before . . .
12 October 2015 at 02:32 #44548Oh I know it was you: I recall the conversation I had regarding the ‘closed’ loop concept of Clara and the claricles. 🙂
But the question is, will the Doctor try to save her? I suspect ‘time is written’ and that the point is that Clara cannot be saved: hence his speech in the Tardis: “there are rules, I can’t go back” when plainly, he created a hologram.
Clara, is herself, metaphorically, a hologram. But aren’t we all? Plainly hanging about waiting to die at some point. Perhaps the time is set. In a way it is. It happens, therefore it’s set. I recall @bluesqueakpip, several months ago, writing about how a person’s death is set, in that once it happens, it’s been ‘ordained’ -Pip, I’m getting this wildly wrong in the re-translation, as it were, but I do recall that post of yours (in my defence, it was an awfully long time ago!).
12 October 2015 at 02:57 #44549@ichabod Missy has been back and forth on Clara’s timeline and has figured out
the Clara connections. By hybrid I think she means that she already knows that Clara
isn’t totally what she appears. It was established that as the impossible girl Clara is
something new. Who better to weaponize for maximum impact then someone that is so close
and connected to the Doctor. As to the puppy comment, it was an excellent put down!
That was Missy doing her best to mess around with Clara’s head IMHO. Because Missy is totally
about the mind games. Missy chose her because of what her position has always been with/to the
Doctor. So yes, of course that makes Clara the perfect tool for whatever Missy’s intentions are.
But those intentions I think will be totally secondary to the way I am guessing this arc is staking up.
That’s my bonkers opinion as of tonight 🙂12 October 2015 at 03:04 #44550@ichabod I’m not ruling out that it could be Missy that sets into motion whatever
it is that happens to get to the end of Clara as companion. But she isn’t really Missy’s
creature.
Unless its for maybe 5 minutes as a possible cliffhanger…. that could work12 October 2015 at 03:05 #44551Though, as Who paradoxes go, it was quite tame and logical — easy to follow.
well, aren’t you the brain! 🙂
I found the paradox’ confusing actually -really confusing. I think there might be others who did too. Can you explain it to me? I almost need a plot by plot, scene by scene breakdown. Because I was lost -I adored it, like a kid listening to the Waldstein Sonata (which was echoed in the first 3 mins, btw) who loves it but cannot comprehend it. There were also echoes of the Pathetique (rather intriguing considering Clara) and some concertos too. Not just the ubiquitous 5th.
we would be incapable of following the moebius logic of a bootstrap paradox without a big signpost to direct us.
I saw the complication of this a little like @blenkinsopthebrave but I also think that the 4th wall was an interesting inclusion -not too negative and not a “big signpost” to me, at least -I didn’t see it as a lecture, imho, but as an aside, a point at which the writer or author voice steps in, and as it concerned Beethoven, I suppose I found it less grievous than some 🙂
These bootstrap paradox are confusing and I shall admit to not understanding the name at all! Why bootstrap? What is the connection? @PhaseShift or @jimmythetulip ?
12 October 2015 at 03:07 #44552Just watched Blink again with my son, because it’s so deliciously perfectly written and acted, and we looked at each other and said “bootstrap paradox” ! … The viewer gets to think through the paradox along with Sally Sparrow a lot more organically than a breaking of the 4th wall explanation… Which makes me agree with others here that this paradox will surely have increasing significance this season to the larger narrative arc. In any event, great episode; great season so far; and, as always, great commentary on this forum.
Favorite quote from this episode: “I somehow doubt that Rose or Martha or Amy lost their breakfast on their first trip” … Dont know why I love these callbacks: perhaps because it hits me in the feels seeing the Doctor hear those names.
12 October 2015 at 03:23 #44553I have now had a second look at the episode and feel I understand the loop a bit better. The intro was even better the second time. Why not have a guitar playing Doctor after all we did have the 2nd Doctor with his recorder.
I have the feeling that when the Doctor is talking to Clara about accepting death and letting go he is actually trying to convince himself. He was quite willing to go to his death because he has seen what’s going to happen to Clara and knows he has to be there for it to happen.No Doctor and the events in the future change. Not being there also means not having to say goodbye and the Doctor hates goodbyes.Then when he realized that Clara was in immediate danger he changed the future in a different way to save her.So the future he knows is still going to happen.
12 October 2015 at 03:29 #44554@purofilion the ‘bootstrap’ comes from a sci fi story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_His_Bootstraps
@ozitenor Yeah Blink and also @jphamlore Genesis of the Daleks too!
But the Doctor didn’t purposefully design those paradoxes as a means
to personal ends in his own story yet.12 October 2015 at 03:30 #44555@sarah-jane109
Well, a troll, hell again! And it’s been a while. If you’d read any of the posts by regulars of this episode and the 3 before it -particularly the Dalek set of episodes, posters like @Denvaldron, @Supernumerary (the latter who had valid issues with this episode in particular) either noted a number of failures -to their mind – or suggested some innate problems.
No-one on this site, for this episode has AT ALL succumbed to some love fest for Moffat. This is your imagination. If you like beguiling, boring aliens, screwy cardboard cut -out walls, then go back to your elementary Before Gap Who or start your personal “hate Moffat” site.
Sending people personal messages is not acceptable either when you wish to merely complain and find a ‘hater’ to match. It won’t be me, madam.
@supernumerary
Less good bits:– The Beethoven 5 on guitar moment is one of the most godawfully cringeworthy things I’ve ever seen on Doctor Who… I’ll refrain from saying more.
Oh Man! I loved it. Knowing that Capaldi can play and that he tied in this with his bootstrap explanation was terrific. Again, I will say that to me -it was confusing. I’m reading a lot of negative reaction to the episode based on “we’re not stupid, we don’t need it explained.” Guess what? I do!! I really do. I found it hard to keep up with the timey whimey ness and yes, I’ll agree, there were issues with the cerebral which didn’t necessarily keep the momentum of the plot flowing but nonetheless I found it equally as good as last’s week. Again, that’s my opinion. I haven’t come across a lot of 4th wall adaptation (?) as @pedant has for example but I certainly like his premise about its relatively common use as a device.
Kindest,
Purofilion
12 October 2015 at 03:31 #44556@lisa thank you very much for that. I feel rather stupid and also annoyed as I received a PM from a hater above! Eek!
12 October 2015 at 03:39 #44558@supernumerary As @bluesqueakpip said regarding the casual loop -and I should have read that first with less than 1/2 a brain as it was not yet ‘beefed’ up on caffeine: 🙂
They can follow it, but many people don’t understand it. If the Causal Loop is about to become a major plot point, it needed a full-on backstory exposition speech.
I’m one of ’em. I needed it. I lack the imagination/intellect and so, for me, it was essential not for the episode itself but as a precursor or reminder of Clara: this is her story, not the Fisher King’s essentially. He was the backstory, she’s the front door.
12 October 2015 at 03:56 #44560<p style=”text-align: center;”>My input on the beginning narrative can be summed up quite well as a nod to Douglas Adams’ tangents explaining random facts to the audience in order to make sense of some nonsense thing to occour much layer by accident but to be purposefully not.</p>
Very British and a slap at the Germans.12 October 2015 at 04:04 #44561@rorysmith So you think that Clara is Missy’s granddaughter and that
Missy wouldn’t care about sacrificing her. But I don’t understand how that
will win any points for Missy with the Doctor. I thought she wanted to make
amends with him not destroy him. She could have been compromised by some
regeneration/Dalek energy. That is something I’d concede and it could be the
issue that helps bring her end. But even though Missy says she chose her I
think that’s a deflection. I am tending to lean towards River as being Clara’s
creator but Missy specifically choosing her for that very reason. -
AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
