The Day of the Doctor
10 December 2013 at 20:57 #22594
@blenkinsopthebrave Welcome back.
I’d get a really, really big box of tissues if I were you.10 December 2013 at 20:58 #22595ScaryB @scaryb
I recommend this blog if you want a rundown of TimeLord appearances throughout the show’s history http://www.thedoctorwhoforum.com/sidrat/time-lords-time-locked-and-im-loving-it/
@blenkinsopthebrave Go into AAiS&T with your usual open mind and I doubt you’ll be disappointed (as a fellow 1st episoder and Hartnell fan) (sorry that sounds a bit smug, wasn’t meant to). There’s a blog for discussion of it.
And the Fiveish Doctors – have you seen that too? (Davison, C Baker and McCoy having a ball ripping the p out of the show, themselves and everything.
Haha – there’s just been too much Dr Who on to keep up with.10 December 2013 at 21:01 #22596ScaryB @scaryb
@craig – think my last post to blenkinsop (and others) has gone to the spam isolation chamber. (it had quite a few links in it)10 December 2013 at 21:03 #2259810 December 2013 at 22:09 #22601
@blenkinsopthebrave Welcome back! I’m glad you enjoyed the episode like most of us.
Could take you days to catch up with everything that has been said and done around here! Good luck and I look very much forward to more of your thoughts.
@gctv Did you know that quite a lot people disliked the River arc (I know, who COULD dislike that?!)? They (grown-ups) complained to the BBC that the story was too complex and that children would not be able to keep up. That’s why Moffat chose to create a different storyline for this last season. And as you say it is very hard to keep everyone happy. I loved “Let’s kill Hitler” but I know that some people on here would rather that episode would not exist at all. Same thing with “The Rings of Akhaten”. I LOVED the Doctors speech and I only realized that people were offended that Clara saved the day when they pointed it out on this forum.
On the other hand I disliked (in comparison to the other episodes of that season)”Cold War” immensely and was shocked to find myself in a minority. Many People seem to prefer these more action-related episodes. Same with “The God Complex”, “The Rebel Flesh”/ “The Almost People” which were quite scary to me. I never did a repeat watch with those – super creepy to me. But then again I accept there are people that expect specifically this from Doctor Who.
@arbutus You think he is a geek because he speaks fast? Imagine how much time went into making those. A lot of cutting and referencing and retaking if he slipped somewhere.
I think I found a mistake though. River Song snipping fingers to close the door? I can’t remember that. (Correct me if I am wrong) The Doctor does it from “Forrest of the Dead” onwards.10 December 2013 at 22:54 #22604toinfinityandbepond @toinfinityandbepond
The Doctor does it because River tells him he can, in the future,
and now Clara can do it too10 December 2013 at 22:59 #22605
@toinfinityandbepond Yes, I know. But we never saw River do it. And that is what he said.10 December 2013 at 23:52 #22607gctv @gctv
@timeloop I had no idea the River Arc was disliked I loved it. Was that why they seemed to close her storyline off so soon? I might be wrong but I seem to remember it just fizzling out and their entire love affair was condensed across a few scenes by the end. Did he ever give her that old screwdriver and notebook? It was fun trying to figure out in my head where both characters were in their respective timelines at the same time as she got out her notebook. Im just starting a rewatch of that series starting with Impossible Astronaut so hopefully that will answer my questions. Lets Kill Hitler was a fun romp and opened with a bang. I didnt like Cold War either but I loved the idea that the Ice Warrior was a scary alien in a big suit. I actually got a bit annoyed when I saw the trailer for that episode because I directed a short film that was all to similar (here if you want to see it). I prefer my doctor who dark and creepy, slimy monsters and the like. I loved the Empress of the Racnoss as a monster for example because it was so big and imposing and really felt like a physical threat.
@scaryb Been trying to make my way through the comments before I joined the conversation and there is so much to take in! Haha I like your spin on my Apples analogy. It’s true though that It has changed since each of the new series has been so different. Watching Eccleston’s episodes compared to Tennant’s later ones there is a vast difference in tone and style and even Moffat’s run with Smith has evolved as we’ve progressed. I was weary of Smith’s first series but it has grown on me. The second series with the River Song Arc was a great big adventure with a fun story arc that was building towards the Doctor’s apparent death and kept me guessing. The third series in concept was amazing and was advertised like each week we were going to see a big sci-fi adventure film but it felt like a bit of a mixed bag really, although there were some great episodes in there.
Can’t wait to see what the Capaldi era will bring. Its a chance to change things up again completely and the prospect of a search for Galifrey story arc sounds great!11 December 2013 at 00:16 #22608
@gctv To be fair they spend a whole season on the mystery of River Song. We got to see her before and after season 6 and will see her again if someone comes up with a very good idea for her character. I heard Moffat say that he thinks her story is told, but that there is always a way in for a good story.
Lots of New-Who dislikes River because of Rose. Or at least they did, I have no clue if they are still holding a grudge. Others think the Doctor should not be romantically inclined in general (most of those Whovians grew up with “younger” Doctors, I presume.)
I deduct from you last posts that you have never seen the minisodes, am I right? If so, that is something you need to catch up with. Especially first night and last night. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xwp5yy_doctor-who-first-and-last-night_shortfilms
Many of us have argued that these few precious minutes have taught us more about River and the Doctor than whole episodes did.
There is also the good and the bad night http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xwp6hh_doctor-who-bad-and-good-nights_shortfilms .
I prefer my Doctor Who to be clever and complex like the Big Bang, the Day of the Doctor (can’t believe some people got lost there), or even the Day of the Moon.
P.S.: Oh! And there is the part who doesn’t like River because they think Moffat wrote her poorly. A woman whos whole life is wrapped around the Doctor. That River should have other goals and opinions and that every line is in some way a stereotype of women. Something along those lines. Not enough character development.
And then there is the part who actually likes River. I am one of those. And I am not alone in my love for River. @lula for example is with me. You can find some YouTube videos of what I think about her and the Doctor in the general music thread in post #10632 and #11151. I would link to them but then my post would be swalloed for a while and all the mods are asleep. There are more. The YouTube channel GuardianJupiter only produces River/Doctor stuff for example.
11 December 2013 at 00:20 #22609Anonymous @
- This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by Timeloop. Reason: Adding stuff :)
hello @gctv see @bluesqueakpip in relation to time war & its evident terror. Right thru the re-boot we’ve had a suspicious feeling that the TL and their society in particular was disliked by the doctor. It was not just an eccentric, harmless group of people. In tEoT we know this for a fact: Rassilion and his minions are prepared to do anything at all to ‘ascend’ and they are quite prepared to do so with the help of the Great Madman, the Master.
As others have said, we don’t need to see it so much as to see the effect of the Time War: although in so many episodes we’ve heard of people ruined and lost due to the War caused not just by daleks but by the inner sanctum (I call them nutters myself) or High Council scheming away without pity for ordinary Gallifreyans. The episode where The Master is taken to the Untempered Schism shows, I think, just what a privileged society, bent on domination, will do. The endless battering in The Master’s head is as a result of what an eight year old was expected to tolerate.
This, together with Cass’s sacrifice is surely sufficient for us to conclude that TL society whilst containing a type of spurious decency, was depraved, unrestrained and dogged. Even one person’s death is surely enough to suggest their disdain for the society of other, perhaps more peaceful, civilisations. I recall, as early as 2005, there being planets and people who feared the Time Lords and who then feared Dr Chris. We don’t need to see the proverbial incarnadine axe dispatching a group of terrified people to know the TL’s were draped with hubris, persistent in menace and deceptively clever. One could be describing serial killers here: complete with hardened, but charming grace and “basically we’re good people” comments.
To me, Cass and her sacrifice was a murder in itself, destined to be because of what we hear in the background (the shouting, the firing of weapons, the inevitable deaths occurring because of what we hear-but don’t necessarily see).
That death, the first personal death we witness as an example of the Time War, seemed to have been so simple, a dropped stone falling into the lakebed with hardly a ripple. What we might take as simple, docile, ordinary was in fact a depth charge, one that exploded quite without warning beneath the glassy surface; the repercussions of which may not be entirely over, even now. This was sufficient for the doctor to recognise he was tainted, a warrior, that which all doctors fear.
As to The Moment’s “unnecessary” role we can see that she opened the available doors for the doctors to come together: her origin was to prevent the red button’s use; to persuade and use moral conscience to guide his decision in the right direction. If he chose, in the end, to press the button then at least his future selves would be right there with him. Much like a family gathering around a child whose machines must be turned off: better to do this with all your family present so that the weight of the decision is evenly carried by all. The horrific memory of that war, the silence that enveloped our screens for those seconds and that preceded this benediction was again, an effect of the terrors of the War itself. The silence, the vultures flying briefly over head as the War Doctor walked to the barn, the country side of that planet, devoid of all life also showed us the war-what would have happened without the doctor’s choice in the name of sanity: no time; no life.
Ultimately it was The Moment who recalled how the sound of the TARDIS heralded hope, even for the doctor. That it is defined as The Moment has much significance, perhaps existing as a weapon well beyond this particular moment in the doctor’s fulfilled decision process.
We may not see people dying, crushed and bruised, others crying helplessly for wives and grandchildren. Showers of light from weaponry, arms windmilling, hands clawing and appealing for help. A barrage of bombs exploding from tanks, dark against a sky going black as planets wink and finally blink out altogether. Cut to the Warrior Doctor, stepping back from an edge holding a gun. Film flaps up in its projector and the screen goes dark. Consummatum est.
It would an objectionable little film if we had to see that; to be an unwilling audience subscribing each night to the same nightmares that the doctor, Cass and other people of different planets lived through. It is enough to know it happened. Living through it in filmic detail would short its emotional power. Time and repeated screenings would endow the memory with a detachment and deceptive ease it should not possess -much like the impotent excuses of the serial killer above. By referencing another’s narrative (that of Cass), the impression of the time war as an event is burned indelibly on the viewer’s heart. We become like Cass and this means we can comprehend the magnitude of the Time War without seeing more of it than necessary: to show each individual frame of the War is to suffuse it with the most workaday details until its acceleration is lost and it becomes something of a curiosity.
What is unthinkable is undoable. What we cannot see we cannot do.
Kindest, purofilion11 December 2013 at 00:29 #22610
You might be misunderstanding my use of the word “geek”; it is not meant as a pejorative! It wasn’t referencing the fast narrative, which as I said, I often see as a symptom of thoughts getting ahead of speech. It was actually referring to exactly what you say: the time spent, the very detailed references, and probably a lot of facts already in the memory banks. I should say that geekdom in any form is not viewed as a negative in my house! 🙂
Isn’t it interesting the different episodes people like and don’t like. I have rarely seen one that I strongly disliked, but definitely felt different degrees of love. You loved “Let’s Kill Hitler” and “The Rings of Akhaten”; I was only so-so on the first, but really enjoyed the second. I also really enjoyed the “Rebel Flesh” two-parter, although I know that lots of people didn’t. I loved River in her first and latest appearances, and had more mixed feelings about her throughout the rest of her arc. This had nothing to do with her complex timeline, only with how strongly the character held my interest in a given episode. Or maybe it has to do with my feelings about each episode overall; I may have to go back and watch them all again to figure that out!11 December 2013 at 00:45 #22611
Wow. Beautifully written, particularly the last paragraph.11 December 2013 at 01:04 #22613Anonymous @
@arbutus; ah, blush and thank you -I am nothing if not a romantic about Dr Who; I’m also obsessive and relentless in my ramblings – in an attempt to convince those who may not agree with elements of Time War & the way it was captured on screen in 75 mere minutes. I think that this series, really is a series in that it asks us to convert all that we know about the doctor, the TLs, into an understanding of the doctor’s present dilemma. It invites us to be intelligent viewers. As you so wonderfully said about the “bloated” writings of Stephen King, everything, perhaps conceived by a different mind, would be stipulated, duplicated and endlessly rephrased (much like what I haplessly do) until nothing is left for us to imagine and to comprehend. Without that, where would we be? Are there forums like this for King’s books and films -maybe. But I’d hard-pressed to find clever musings by so many different people complete with esoteric and finely honed diagrams. And to find a forum where people respectfully disagree by circumlocution in a way that’s delightful, whimsical and discursive.
To @timeloop, I hadn’t seen The First Night, The Last Night!! Lovin’ it & thank you ever so much! I assume it’s on some DVD extra from Seasons 2-3 of Mat Smith -I only have Season 1 (as ho-hum, I might have taped some of those episodes..deleting them now…and buying from our ABC shop today).
To you all in the UK/ States, you’re off to bed and I’m just now, at about 11am, about to get out of bed. I’m on Long Service Leave-which is why I have all this TIME to read your fantastic contributions and add my own long digressions. Last night it was about 26 degrees Celsius and the A/C was on all night. It’s now about 30 degrees but with a humidity of about 90%. Oh, gosh I want to be in the cold….
love you all-purofilion11 December 2013 at 01:15 #22615Anonymous @
@arbutus, I too loved the Rings of Akhaten. I loved that speech. I want to write a little (god I hope so) eulogy to our out-going doctor recalling words from that spectacular speech: “have it all baby” might have been excised (just me, personally). It reminds me, you know, of The Pandorica Opens when he says “remember every black day you every stopped me and then…”. The speech at Akhaten was a final bracket to that opening season-to see how far the doctor had come, was remarkable, to see that he was finally remembering rather than being the doctor who ‘forgets’ was spectacular. My 12 year old boy weeps during both speeches (“just hayfever mum”) and I muse that this is indeed something to be proud of: a series which doesn’t condone violence for its own sake, asks us to render it immoral and thus to recognise that to see such violence caters to an egotistical and primitive impulse. To be moved by words and what could be rather than what is.
kindest, purofilion11 December 2013 at 01:27 #22618
In addition to what I wrote earlier @gctv (forgot to copy and paste the newest version)
(…There are more. The YouTube channel GuardianJupiter only produces River/Doctor stuff for example.) But it does look like the Doctor slowly moves on.
I didn’t notice that Moffat has a certain blueprint though. The Doctor meets a lot of his female companions when they are rather young lately and comes back later for them. River, Amy and Clara to name a few. So I hope Capaldi won’t go down the same road. Read that a few days ago somewhere on the internet.
Will have to answer you later.11 December 2013 at 01:52 #22620
I can’t take credit for the excellent Stephen King comment, that was @MartyB. But I agree that saying things concisely is much harder than the opposite. It’s more work! In story-telling these days, there is an increasing tendency for novels to be huge, for films to be so long that I for one can’t sit through one without a bathroom break. So much for the people who claim that our attention span is getting shorter!
I’m with you on those scenes from “Akhaten” and “Pandorica”. I love a good speech, and Matt Smith delivers really, really well. Okay, now I have to watch “Akhaten” again. Ha. I also concur wholeheartedly in your view of the members of this forum and their logic, passion, creativity, literacy, and civility. Kudos to everyone here for that.
It’s not bedtime where I am, dinner time actually, so I’d better get to it as the Family Members are on their way home. I love the rhythm of daylight traveling around the planet, and bringing the different forum members online as it goes!11 December 2013 at 10:04 #22627Anonymous @
You definitely have writing talent and your compassion and empathy shine through your comment 22609. I hope you don’t mind that I’ve linked to it for my GF to read when she gets home from work tonight. That was the epitome of the phrase ‘wax lyrical’. I am more like ‘wane atonally’ myself.
Thanks for the attribution on the Stephen King comment. In the years of no DW after Sylvester McCoy I started reading all of his novels and for a long time I considered myself one of his biggest fans. In fact it was reading his books that made me want to become a (sort of, part time) writer myself. But at some point I realised that he had grown too famous for an editor to have necessary control over his output. His novels got bigger and longer and didn’t get better for that. You are absolutely correct to say that being concise is so much more difficult. (On the other side of the debate – the rise of Twitter. Millions of people are being concise every day, but 99.9% of them don’t have anything interesting to say. Perhaps that particular coda should be debated elsewhere 🙂 )
The difference to Day of the Doctor and Night of the Doctor (and all of DW) is that Moffat is working within a strict and unchangeable time limit. Each episode can only be a certain length. TV writers don’t have the luxury of self-indulgence (and they don’t have a bottomless pit for a budget). I’m firmly of the belief that neither the 50th nor its prequel could have been any longer without losing both their horror and their pathos, and the beauty of the redemption at the end of the 50th episode. And as @purofilion said in her later comment, they work in their perfection of length by assuming the audience has the intelligence to ‘imagine and comprehend.’11 December 2013 at 10:36 #22628Anonymous @
Regarding individual episodes that cause friction amongst fans (although this comment might not belong on this thread), I liked Let’s Kill Hitler as a stand-alone piece of work. It was fast-paced and filled with humour. River Song was camper than Julian Clary which takes some work in both writing and acting.
However, I don’t think it worked completely in context of the overall series and story arcs. Mels was introduced as an integral part of Amy and Rory’s childhood and teenaged years but we’d never heard of her before this. And River Song changed too abruptly from brainwashed assassin to saviour of the Doctor. Previously I have said I approve of concise storytelling but that bit felt like a page or two of the script got cut.
I had to look at the BBC site to remind myself that Let’s Kill Hitler was the episode immediately after A Good Man Goes to War, in which Amy and Rory learnt that River Song is their daughter Melody. Did we learn how much time for the Doctor, Amy and Rory passed between War and Hitler? At any rate Hitler’s tone, as much fun as it was, seemed completely out of sync to War and to Night Terrors which came next. (And Night Terrors is one which also divides fans.)
Looking for a thread to tie all three episodes together, though, what I can see is the ‘cuckoo in the nest’. There was a baby in War who wasn’t the real baby, there was a child in Hitler who wasn’t what she seemed to be, and there was George of course in Terrors who wasn’t the real son. So maybe in the course of writing this post I’m convincing myself that Hitler does manage to fit into the arc of stories. Hmmm, I need to think about Hitler again perhaps.11 December 2013 at 12:28 #22631
Hi @MartyB, @Purofilion and @timeloop,
I’m really enjoying the conversation and something that Marty said:
You are absolutely correct to say that being concise is so much more difficult.
reminded me of this famous aphorism – “If I had more time, I would have written a shorter note”
Quite a number of attributions to who said it first, but I know its been true of me on farrr too many occasions.
However, if we waited till we could be as concise as we wanted, we might never say anything – and that would be to everyone’s loss, so please please please keep typing!
🙂11 December 2013 at 13:15 #22635
ooh and @arbutus (how could I forget you!?)
I’ve loved your conversation here (with @MartyB, @Purofilion and @timeloop and anyone else I’ve forgotten!).
It is great how the show is deliberately set up to be able to cater for any type of genre and storyline (horror, comedy, drama, adventure etc). It’d be an impossibility to allow for that many types of story, by that many writers over such a long time for all of them to work for everyone!
In terms of River Song, I must admit I find her slightly insufferable at times (mainly in her ‘knowing’ moments) but the minisodes are a complete pleasure. I think they really deliver a more rounded experience of their relationship. And the pathos of both of them knowing how the relationship ‘must’ end, yet it is worth continuing because of their love.
ah, if only the Doctor was one of those sorts who went back and broke the rules and stopped the inevitable moment from happening… – and that way madness lies and the destruction of the very thing that feeds love (our mortality) would destroy the reason for not wanting it to stop.
Instead we have to get to the end as best as possible, knowing there is an end.
Even if we’ve been subjected to the spoilers – its still worth experiencing.11 December 2013 at 13:49 #22636
Something I’ve been meaning to post for while is that the current fate of Gallifrey (“frozen… in an instant of time… like a painting”) reminds me of Kandor (a lost city of Krypton) in Superman. It was shrunk by Brainiac before Krypton was destroyed and retrieved many years later by Superman. It took him many more years before he could finally enlarge the city again and enable the Kandorains to rebuild Krypton’s civilisation. Just thought it might have been an influence.11 December 2013 at 22:45 #22679Anonymous @
@whisht and @MartyB, sorry it was you (Whisht) who spoke of different genres.. Can we attribute that quote to Oscar Wilde? Sounds like him -though Churchill was one for that. Whilst I liked the way Lets Kill Hitler was filmed (cinematography, humour, delightful connection between Smith and Kingston), I too found it odd how River went from nutter to hero in a few minutes. Also the tesselector was amazing but the fiery punishment was horrifying and medieval for me. I also found River’s repeated “spoilers” sounded vaguely like a porn star but having just watched the minisodes, did she get that word from the doctor?
I never understood Night Terrors. Beyond me. A lot of people didn’t like The God Complex but I keep re-watching it. The young female doctor would have made a brilliant companion. And of course, corridors (I love a corridor!) echo The Shining-one of my top 10 films. @craig, other than the movie, I know zilch about Superman. My brother, who read nothing but comics as a kid, has all of them still!
@MartyB -“wane atonally”, very funny. Not true for you! I work with atonal stuff quite a lot -violins snapping strings, the dreaded oboe player losing them reeds and the 1st violin breaking up with a boyfriend, getting ‘flatter by the bar’.
Kindest, purofviolin, I mean purofilion12 December 2013 at 03:18 #22687
I work with atonal stuff quite a lot -violins snapping strings, the dreaded oboe player losing them reeds and the 1st violin breaking up with a boyfriend, getting ‘flatter by the bar’.
Kindest, purofviolin, I mean purofilion
This sounds very exciting, almost as dramatic as an episode of Doctor Who. Do you mean that you perform new music? Or that the music simply sounds that way after all the lost reeds, broken strings, and so on?13 December 2013 at 07:04 #22712ThatsBrilliant @thatsbrilliant
Hi, new here. 🙂 Been a crazy fan for a while now but haven’t quite delved into forums. Please be kind, and if I break any local customs, let me know.
I finally bit the bullet and found you when I actually had a discovery on my own and felt like it was cool enough to share. Then I get here and was all ready to post but it looks like someone beat me to it. It’s mentioned in the Fan Creativity thread so I thought it would be ok to bring it to light here.
I happened to rewatch Rise of the Cybermen, when they’re trapped in Pete’s universe, and to my astonishment…
MICKEY: But I’ve seen it in comics. People go hopping from one alternative world to another. It’s easy.
DOCTOR: Not in the real world. It used to be easy. When the Time Lords kept their eye on everything, you could hop between realities, home in time for tea. Then they died, and took it all with them. The walls of reality closed, the worlds were sealed. Everything became that bit less kind.
I think it does follow that if the Time Lords are restored, we could have another pop between worlds, involving Rose and Duplicate Ten. It’s the kind of thing fans will clamor for, right?
Being a huge Tennant fan I’d love to see him again and again, but I’m still unhappy with what they did story-wise, with a half-Donna version of Ten getting the blame for violent actions and being stuck with Rose, which made very little sense whatsoever. In fact I found Rose’s entire characterization and the interactions she had with Ten in those episodes to be unsatisfying, so I kind of cringe at the idea of having to revisit it. But, but but! Wouldn’t it still be great to see what’s going on with them? 🙂
Regarding the discussion above on whether people like River, I have to include myself in the camp of not being a big fan of all that. The fun of her being so badass kind of pulled it through for me, even as I was annoyed that the world revolved around her and not the Doctor, that she was running the show much of the time and the Doctor was dragged along, not really making it a love story so much as a requirement and he just goes through the motions. The last straw for me was when they finally had the TARDIS to themselves and she says “there’s only room for one of us” and just leaves. So much for the love story of the ages. I really wanted to love her and the Ponds too, but it just wasn’t for me, I guess. I try not to be a Moffat hater, as he’s got the right touch plenty of times and there are lots of stories I’ve enjoyed, but yeah, more of a Davies fan here.
Been watching random classic Who between whiles and am wondering if anyone is watching Whoflix? I tried one and while I wouldn’t have made all the same choices I still found it pretty great to get to the meat of the story. Those First Doctor eps are quite the slog sometimes but they have such fabulous ideas in them.
Hope this isn’t too much for a first post!13 December 2013 at 07:50 #22714Anonymous @
@thatsbrilliant – Hello and welcome.
Please be kind
We’re always kind, well most of the time 😉
and if I break any local customs, let me know.
The ‘Etiquette’ link at the top of the page will give you some basic do’s and don’ts. With various websites publishing stills and potentially leaking plot details for ‘The Time Of The Doctor’, please take note of the section regarding ‘spoilers’ as some of our members like to avoid them.
Those First Doctor eps are quite the slog sometimes
Yes, I have only vague memories of BG Who and I’ve gotten so used to the stand-alone/occasional 2-parter format of AG Who that I sometimes find BG stories can be a bit too long, especially the 6 parters, but worth it 🙂
In case you’re wondering, BG = Before Gap (ie, cancellation) and AG means After Gap. I know other sites use different terminology (OldWho/NuWho, PreGap/PostGap etc) but we tend to use BG/AG. It’s not the law though, you can use whatever method you’re comfortable with 🙂13 December 2013 at 08:24 #22718Anonymous @
Your post 22609 was beautifully written as several people have told you. You should also know it can perform magic …
She Who Cannot Be Named enjoyed reading your post so much that she forgave me for joining a DW forum. She said ‘I had no idea that’s what they were like!’ Sadly she had to be told the news that most of the others are pretty awful, but this one is different.13 December 2013 at 08:58 #22720Anonymous @
Hello to a new signup from another new signup. Long posts are not only tolerated here, they appear to be required. 🙂 So you shouldn’t apologise for writing a long first post. Congratulations are in order instead.
Can I ask you if you started watching Doctor Who when David Tennant played the Doctor? I got that feeling from reading your post. If I’m wrong then the rest of this might not apply to you.
Everyone who loves DW – and even those people who merely ‘watch’ it – started watching the show when a particular actor and production team were in charge. The first Doctor you experience can imprint on you to the point that the phrase ‘My Doctor’ is part of the Whoniverse. You experience Your Doctor’s adventures, you like or loathe Your Doctor’s companions, and the style of writing becomes the template for your own immersion into DW.
The first regeneration you experience can be devastating. Suddenly there is a new actor, perhaps even a new production team, and it can seem a bit ‘off’ somehow. Leaving aside for a moment the reboot in 2005, it has been common throughout the history of DW that a companion carried over from one Doctor to the next. That eased the transition for viewers – Sarah Jane Smith took us from Jon Pertwee to Tom Baker, Adric, Nyssa and Tegan took us from T Baker to Peter Davison, Peri took us from Davison to Colin Baker, Mel took us from C Baker to Sylvester McCoy, Rose took us from Christopher Eccleston to David Tennant.
When Tennant regenerated into Matt Smith, there was suddenly a new Doctor, new companions, and a new showrunner as well. People who started watching DW with the 2005 reboot surely felt that they were suddenly watching something entirely different. I know from surfing various DW sites over the years that a lot of the ‘reboot crowd’ have found it difficult to warm to Matt Smith’s interpretation of the Doctor, and are bemused by Steven Moffat’s style as showrunner.
I count myself one of the lucky ones because I started watching in the ‘classic’ era or as @fatmaninabox points out for this forum, ‘BG’ Before Gap times. I knew how differently each new actor could play the Doctor, and I knew how different production teams wanted to present the show via the spectacles of their own particular vision. I also knew that, outside specials broadcast around anniversary years, once a Doctor had regenerated, I wouldn’t see him again. His time was over, his interpretation laid lovingly to rest, and a new actor picked up the reins and went in a new and exciting direction.
The BG episodes were virtually all multi-part stories and that was the ‘template’ I myself had for the show. When RTD brought it back, suddenly a 2-part story was an aberration and almost all stories were a single episode. That took some getting used to, I have to admit. I’ll go back and watch some of the old stories and somehow I feel calmer, more relaxed – the new style still, 8 years later, makes me a bit more tensed up. Also, with Moffat, I now feel like I haven’t properly watched an episode if I haven’t seen it at least 3 times – there are so many details to pick up in so little time. But being a long-time DW fan, I know that this is how the show is, now – and it fits today’s world better. Those 4, 5, or 6 part stories fit the times they were broadcast in better.
It’s all part of the change that a 50 year history brings – the show must change or else it would have really died long ago. And so many of people creating the show today have been fans since BG times themselves, so they can reference old stories, old companions, and prior eccentricities of various actors in loving hommage to the history of the show.
So, that’s my own very long post in reply to whether or not I think any version of Doctor 10 will be brought back at all, much less regularly, in the future of DW. Re the aphorism @whisht brought up (‘if I had more time, this letter would’ve been shorter’): ‘Change, my dear, change. It’s all good.’ 🙂
Marty13 December 2013 at 10:43 #22726Anonymous @
@MartyB thank you very much for your generous-spirited comments- it is a great forum: so many different ideas, expressed deliciously from people on both ‘sides’ of our planet -should it be ‘dimensions’? All 12?13 December 2013 at 11:39 #22727
@thatsbrilliant – I always thought that popping 10.5 in an alternate universe and having him age as a human was simply a convenient device. Namely, to enable future producers to bring back David Tennant in a guest spot after he’d visibly aged beyond his ‘current Doctor’ years.
The ‘revisit old faces’ line is similar; it allowed us to see Tom Baker again. But it also allows us to see any previous Doctor again – as a new incarnation who’s re-visited an old face.
Matt Smith is, after all barely in his thirties. David Tennant is barely in his forties. It’s possible that one or both of them might want to revisit the role when they’re older.13 December 2013 at 14:52 #22737XAD4 @xad4
Has the Anchorman clip already been posted here (shown in cinemas before the anniversary episode)?
(Sorry in case the link is not working. I’m stuck with some fairly dodgy browsers at the moment).13 December 2013 at 16:07 #22738
Well said. I’ve just been reflecting on my first experiences with the show, and it is exactly as you say. My Doctor is Tom Baker, my first episode “City of Death”, and I can vividly recall my bemusement and confusion as I tried to understand the show, and my delight when I had finally figured it out! My benchmark qualities in a doctor tend to hark back to the Fourth, with his quirky dialogue and complete disregard for appearances, which can suddenly shift to steely determination when required. And certainly, the Douglas Adams-penned “City of Death” was as “timey wimey” as anything from Moffat’s era, and that style of writing seems to me a quintessential aspect of Doctor Who.
And you’re right, I loved the Fourth Doctor’s companions as well; all of them competent, self-confident, and well able to face up to the Doctor and take him down a peg if needed! (This is probably why Donna is my favourite AG companion, as she never hesitated to put the Doctor in his place.)
When Baker regenerated into Davison, I was so new to the show (and watching in Canada, where it wasn’t part of the cultural DNA) that I had no idea about regeneration. Without warning, my new hero took a fall and changed into another person! I never took as long to accept a new doctor as I did that first time, although I came to enjoy Davison’s doctor very much in the end.
So you have perfectly encapsulated my own experience in coming to the show. I also agree about the old versus new formats. While I have adjusted to the pace of AG Who, and understand that it is Who for the 21st century, it still sometimes jars. But of course, that comes with getting older as well: the world speeds up, and I slow down (just a bit!).
Thanks for your post. It made me think about that aspect of my “fandom” in a new way. And I love these sentences: I also knew that, outside specials broadcast around anniversary years, once a Doctor had regenerated, I wouldn’t see him again. His time was over, his interpretation laid lovingly to rest, and a new actor picked up the reins and went in a new and exciting direction. Well put! And of course, this: ‘Change, my dear, change. It’s all good.’13 December 2013 at 16:09 #22739
@bluesqueakpip – I always thought that popping 10.5 in an alternate universe and having him age as a human was simply a convenient device. Namely, to enable future producers to bring back David Tennant in a guest spot after he’d visibly aged beyond his ‘current Doctor’ years.
I hadn’t thought of that. And I’m usually pretty quick to cry “Cynical writer’s ploy” or “convenient plot device”! 🙂13 December 2013 at 16:18 #22741ThatsBrilliant @thatsbrilliant
@fatmaninabox – thank you for the welcome and the info.
@MartyB – My dad watched a little Tom Baker when I was a kid but I barely have memories of that. I started with Eccleston, though not at the time it was aired. It’s only been just over a year since I began my journey and it’s hard for me to believe I’ve ever been without Who. I’ve watched some First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Doctor episodes, and while I still have massive holes in my knowledge I’m fully committed to getting to everything eventually.
I love Nine and endlessly wish we’d had more of him (so sad about the 50th!) but as you can tell, Ten is my Doctor (making the 50th so much fun anyway). It’s true that I’ve had a hard time letting him go. I warmed completely to Smith’s portrayal, loved his physicality and energy and look, but never liked the personality the writing gave him. Dipping into prior incarnations taught me that the Doctor has been so many men, some of which I love, some of which challenge me more to see the Doctor inside. In fact, Two taught me to appreciate certain sides of Eleven. It’s interesting, I really enjoyed the Second Doctor ones I’ve seen, even though he’s pretty hapless. In him I find it endearing.
I do not begrudge those who love Eleven – most of my friends that watch are among them. It can be a bit of a bummer when you realize that the current Doctor isn’t your own, and you’ll have to be ok with that for a while. I’m beyond excited for Twelve, since the signals they’re throwing out in the 50th seem to say we’ll see something very different, more mature, and I’m so up for that.13 December 2013 at 16:45 #22743geoffers @geoffers
@purofilion – thank you for that excellently elegant post (22609)! i can’t agree more, and would just like to add one more thought…
how many inhabited planets has the doctor personally destroyed? in the entire history of the show, has it ever been revealed that he destroyed even one, other than gallifrey? he couldn’t even push the button that would destroy all the daleks, before there was a full-scale time war…
so, why is it so hard (for some) to imagine what a terrible, terrible decision it was to use the moment? it’s his HOME! he burns his home planet, and all the people on it (including children), as the only way to end the time war. is that, alone, not enough to tell you how horrible the time war was? that the best person in the universe could think of no other way to stop it, except to destroy his own world?
why must you see that? and if you still insist that it would just be cool to see, then what kind of budget would the bbc have to give moffat, and how long would the resulting movie(s) be, to convey all that horror effectively enough?
before hurt was revealed as the war doctor, i tried to imagine what his crime was, and how it could possibly be worse than that. i’m glad it wasn’t something far worse, because killing nearly everyone and everything you know is pretty bad! (not to mention, those enemies he thought would be gone, as well? some escaped. just another little twist of the knife for our “hero.”)
at least, i think that’s pretty bad. and i don’t need to see worse than that to be entertained. certainly not in a show for children…
🙂14 December 2013 at 00:36 #22764
I think it might be funny to do a check up of our predictions. They were forgotten so quickly after the the movie and we spend so much time on figuring them out.
I see in my crystal ball that: And I comment on it.
- We will see Galifrey, the Time War and “The Moment” check
- The Time Lock will stay in place well…. Depends on how you see it? When it was never there and Galifrey is still well hidden, then yes. If Time Lock refers to Galifrey burning, then no.
- Matt might be regenerating at the end as a cliffhanger. I somehow cannot believe that there will be a full regeneration in the Christmas episode. It is just not in the spirit of Christmas and if I remember correctly the last one was very much so. Although it would give Moffat more time to make it as painful as possible which is what he promised…? He did even tease Matt at ComicCon about his death scene (yes I searched through the whole video to find that reference)
Clearly I haven’t decided yet. And also clearly I was wrong.
- The Zygons are in possession of ‘the Moment’ – the Doctor hid it there Wrong.
- IF we do see the Silence they will be presented under different circumstances – maybe assisting a cause of the Doctor in the long run. Did not happen but I am keeping my fingers crossed for the christmas special.
- The Doctor has to relive and slightly change his own past to escape? Presuming all is flux because he is in his own time stream. Then again – that would be leaning on JTTCOTT. Depends on the next episode. Moffat the sly fox.
- My build up expectations will disappoint me. And I was so wrong. The episode was freaking amazing in 3D.
- Clara will not be related to the Doctor – that thought is somehow revolting to me. Was no theme. So I was kinda right?
- Clara is in some way connected to River – They use the same expressions for crying out loud. I hope do I get around making a list. I felt constantly reminded of River in the second half of season 7 The more often I hear Clara say Rivers lines it the harder it gets to tell who said what first. One really needs to take notes while watching it the first time.
- I think the regeneration limit is a given. I agree that the Zygons themselves will not be super improtant. Nope, no regeneration explanation. Zygons as an example how to solve the problem. That is important.
What about yours?14 December 2013 at 23:50 #22825
If there’s one thing I did get right, it was that there was a “big red button” 😉15 December 2013 at 09:13 #22831BowtiesAreCool37 @bowtiesarecool37
So, you know how at the end of the movie all of the doctors appeared and were helping to preserve Gallifray, and Peter Capaldi was there too? Well, this means future doctors were appearing as well as past doctors, but only one showed up, so this means Peter Capaldi must in some way be the last Doctor.15 December 2013 at 11:45 #22835
@bowtiesarecool37 – except that in The Name of The Doctor, there are only eleven Doctors plus the War Doctor. So at Trenzalore, Matt Smith is the last Doctor.
::cue spooky music::16 December 2013 at 00:31 #22865soundworld @soundworld
@timeloop My own conviction was that we would see something to do with the red/blue shift (and one, archaic, meaning of shift being a loose dress thus clara’s red/blue dress symbolism?) Maybe this was all superfluous detail, maybe we will have some explanation in the Christmas episode. I’m also thinking of the ideas re there being two doctors with slight differences (eg in The Crimson Horror – sorry, still haven’t got my head around episode initials!). Could timestream2 Dr go back and change things in Timestream1?
@phaseshift thank you so much for the link to your blog earlier at Time Lords: Time Locked, and I’m loving it, very informative and entertaining. I think from this that if we do see the return of the Time Lords, then they’ll soon have to invent a reason to get rid of them again! Although, the story arcs and the writing AG tend to be more self-consistent than BG. I get the impression that having story arcs is quite a recent concept?
@purofilion What beautiful writing and expression from the heart. Thank you. This community is a wonderful find. As a (part-time) musician, I’m intrigued by your musical comments too!
@bowtiesarecool37 They can get around that one easily by saying that only those 13 incarnations were required to do the job of saving Gallifrey? Maybe the grid around Gallifrey only works with 13 equidistant tardises.16 December 2013 at 00:44 #22866soundworld @soundworld
Oh, just posted and its completely disappeared. Ok, here goes again.
@timeloop I was expecting something to do with the red/blue shift references from various episodes. (and, noting that ‘shift’ is an archaic word meaning ‘dress’ hence Clara’s red/blue dress? ) I hope we may still see something on this in the Christamd episode, along with an explanation for the 2 slightly-different doctors eg in TCH (The Crimson Horror – still to get the hang of these acronyms!). Could timestream2 Dr go back and change things in timestream1?
@purofilion I so enjoyed your beautifully written posts from the heart. Thank you, its part of what makes this community such a wonderful find. Being a (part-time) musician myself, I am also intrigued by your musical comments…
@phaseshift Thank you for the link earlier to Time Lords: Time Locked, and I’m loving it, very informative and amusing. Reading this I would think it likely that if the Time Lords do return, then a reason will soon have to be found to get rid of them again! Although I would hope that the AG writers could come up with better Time Lord storylines than they seemed to manage in BG – maybe not!
@bowtiesarecool37 Ah, but they could get around that, by simply saying that only 13 Tardises were required in order to correctly space the grid around Gallifrey?16 December 2013 at 05:56 #22876alloftimeandspace @alloftimeandspace
Okay, here’s what I don’t get… What does being ‘frozen in a moment in time’ mean for the people in Gallifrey. Do they continue to live their lives normally or are they stuck in that moment? will it always be war for them?16 December 2013 at 06:03 #22877Anonymous @
@soundworld love your avatar BTW, & thank you for your compliment: yes, music is one part of my life. But like the sway and swell of waves not far from my house, music comes and goes, too. Interestingly, I adored the very first rendition of Dr Who’s fabulous theme: so utterly otherworldly and breathtaking. I love your idea about the dress/shift. Of course! But is Moff very sartorial? I’m not sure about the colour bow-ties but I hope we get an explanation. There’s a double to everything in these past seasons. Agree, too, with the 13 TARDIS’ required for the grid/stasis creation.
purofilion16 December 2013 at 06:18 #22878Anonymous @
@thatsbrilliant -‘waves hello’ from Down Under. I agree with you about 9’s life as the Doctor-a great introduction. 10’s run was wonderful -I think he brought lots of newbies to the Doctor too, especially with his 1st and 2nd episodes: remember Zoe Wanamaker? Brill!
As for doing anything wrong, they’ll let you know alright 😉 Kindest, purofilion and welcome, you’ll have a blast.
alloftimeandspace I’ve got theories brewing (like my next cup of coffee, nod to @rob and other coffee/paraphernalia lovers) about what they do in stasis….16 December 2013 at 13:24 #22890wolfweed @wolfweed
The Day of the Doctor features 3 Rabbit moments.
Firstly, we see a fearful young girl with her toy rabbit (So Gallifrey has rabbits?!?).
Secondly we see the Doctor mistake a real rabbit for a Zygon.
Thirdly, we see the girl with her toy rabbit again, only this time it’s bleeding stuffing profusely.
The rabbit is a symbol of fertility and rebirth…….16 December 2013 at 18:50 #22917
@wolfweed – Gallifrey also has teddy bears. Personally, I reckon they just couldn’t detach toddler from toy. Mummy and Daddy may be telling us it’s ‘let’s pretend’, but Daleks are scary. 😈
Good catch on the rabbit, though. Eggs, rabbits, very Easter. First episode of Series 8 an Easter Special?
@alloftimeandspace – I took it that ‘stasis’ was just like the pictures. Frozen, unaware. As far as you’re concerned, no time passes until someone ‘adds time’. That was why The General was so sceptical – if someone doesn’t come along to unfreeze Gallifrey, it’s effectively like being dead.
The difference, as the Doctor points out, is that this way – there’s hope.
So yeah, it’s going to be a bit weird when the Doctor finds Gallifrey. “Hi guys, the war’s over. In fact, it’s been over for centuries. Well, millennia, really – finding you was a bit difficult and I took the long way round.”16 December 2013 at 19:19 #22920
I took it that ‘stasis’ was just like the pictures. Frozen, unaware. As far as you’re concerned, no time passes until someone ‘adds time’.
@bluesqueakpip – That’s the best explanation of the explanation “Cuppa Soup” I’ve seen!
At the time I ignored it (much in the way that the Doctor suggested as it was a terrible analogy).
Also if you’re right (and just why wouldn’t you be?) then when the Doctor does revive Gallifrey, the TLs will (still) be on a war footing, and there’ll be a few Daleks to duck from.
I wonder if they shot any extra scenes…?17 December 2013 at 17:44 #22990
@toinfinityandbepond Ha! That’s brilliant. Maybe when the woman said “best tech support in the universe”, the phrase was somehow caught by the TARDIS, who knows where the best in the universe really is. I like this theory. And I’d forgotten about the Churchill/River conversation.
And by the way, great user name!
@bluesqueakpip Cool. I’m aware of the Sarah Jane Adventures but haven’t seen the show (although I always loved the character). That’s a nice idea, that it might have been Sarah Jane helping Clara to become The Impossible Girl.
@whisht That’s the best explanation of the explanation “Cuppa Soup” I’ve seen! Agreed!17 December 2013 at 17:52 #22991
@arbutus Never seen the Sarah Jane Adventures? You’ve got to see this one. It’s in two parts, and features Matt as the Doctor, Sarah Jane obviously, and Jo Grant! Also sneakily suggests the Doctor has many more regenerations left. It’s for kids but still a lot of fun.17 December 2013 at 18:08 #2299417 December 2013 at 18:43 #22996Anonymous @
As a 40-year old man, I feel that I can’t say I liked The Sarah Jane Adventures anywhere but on this forum.
It was a CBBC TV show which means I’m probably on Operation Yewtree’s radar for expressing admiration for it. But it felt like ‘BG’ Doctor Who to me. Sarah Jane carried off the Doctor role admirably. Her teenaged companions were irascible, contrary, scared, resourceful, and sometimes more attuned to what the resolution of the problem should be than SJS herself. She was a facilitator of her charges growing up, but I signed that off as post-millennial broadcast date differences compared to so-called ‘Classic Who’ and the previous Doctors’ approaches to their companions. But her role as a ‘teacher’ of her companions was utterly in the spirit of the first two Doctors.
The Matt Smith to Clyde Langer revelation that the Doctor has over 500 regenerations was surely an in-joke which has been taken far too seriously to heart by the ‘is it canon?’ brigade. If we can believe McGann’s Doctor was joking about being half-human, surely we can believe that the 11th Doctor in TSJA was having his own little joke?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.