Death in Heaven

[ichabod @ichabod]

@denvaldron  Re “hack”, I take your point.  It’s a well reasoned position.

Congratulations on the acceptance of your novel.

[DenValdron @denvaldron]

And in hip hop, ‘bitches and ho’s’ simply means women.  So I take your point that culture and context have a bit to do with it.

Words are tricky things.   A number of black people might call themselves the N**** word.  But that doesn’t mean you or I could walk into a bar filled with black people and fling it around.   Biggy Smalls might describe himself that way, but I don’t think your or I could describe him with that term.

 

[DenValdron @denvaldron]

I take no real pleasure from it.   It came years too late, after a failed marriage and on the same morning (within half an hour) after receiving word from my father’s cancer.   There was a time when it was all I wanted out of life, my dream, my ambition.   Now, all I taste is ashes.

I wake up in the morning, and I want to smash the whole fucking world in the mouth.   Then I put away that urge and get on with my day.

 

[ichabod @ichabod]

@phaseshift  Good Heavens, Dickens!  How could I have forgotten Dickens, one of the most successful hacks of all time?!  Maybe we’re talking about the confusion that has succeeded the time-honored division of fiction writers into “gentleman authors” who *could* write fiction because they had other sources of income, and pen-pushers (another term for “hack”, as I recall) who wrote for pay, having no other inflow of money?  These categories are shiftable, too, culturally and in time — I mean, Shakespeare wrote what was pop culture at the time, and was supported at least in part by patronage, and now . . . ?  Actually, a friend of mine who keeps company with psychics told me that Shakespeare is still reincarnating, and was (as recently as ten years ago) a journalist.  I can’t say that I found the idea absurd (well, except for the psychic part, but I’m not entirely sure about that either).

[ichabod @ichabod]

@denvaldron  I think I am acquainted with that particular black dog of rage, as are so many people who struggle with their chosen art and their circumstances (or the art and circumstances that have chosen them).  Which Greek philosopher was the one who said this: “Be kind; everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle”?  Words to live by, but so much easier said than done . . .

[IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan @pedant]

@denvaldron

 To shower the writers of the classic series with contempt is both unbecoming and misguided.

Then it is as well nobody has done that.

I’m a hack – I write for money and I do research for money. I answer the question my client set me, and although I (or my work partners) may pich ideas we are, in the end, hired guns. That is what a hack is, and it is not, in any way, an insult.

Also, one of the things that most hacks have in common (by force of circumstance) is that they tend to be concise.

Just sayin’.

[DenValdron @denvaldron]

I am a hired gun myself, and there is no dishonour in this.   What we choose to call ourselves is one thing.  That same word for others, can have quite a different effect.  I refer you to Biggy Smalls.

As for being concise, that’s just a tool.

[lisa @lisa]

@ichabod I agree with everything you said except I have a possible small
discrepancy with the notion of her working independently and not under control of
others. Perhaps the Galifreyans or with Dr.Skarosa ? I don’t think we know about
all of that yet.
Also I don’t think we know for sure if she created herself or was created by
some one or group for some nefarious purpose. Of course I’m not even convinced
that she is a regeneration but then maybe I’m the one that’s bananas?

It seems to me we are living in a transitional time when a lot of folks still have
a problem with what ladies are and think that you cant manage the agility to be both
a strong women and still lady ‘like’ so they throw around sexist terms based on outdated
standards. Its unfortunate that these people continue to be pinned down by prejudice.
Although I have to reluctantly admit that I wondered myself if she is wearing scandalous
undergarments under that Edwardian suit? 😉

[ichabod @ichabod]

@lisa  Oh, she *absolutely* is, I’m sure of it!  The whole costume and noting but the costume, a vital part of playing the role!  And your no more bananas than anybody else around here . . . “bonkers” is just another word for “bananas”, isn’t it?

[jphamlore @jphamlore]

There is a very good reason in the crafting of the story for Osgood to die:  Having seen her technical competence, the Doctor would be expected to make an offer to her to be a companion, she would be expected to say yes, but as previously shown in Season 8 with Perkins, this can’t happen for the very reason she is too technically competent.  Therefore she had to be killed off, immediately.

As shown by Clara’s familiarity with where the Doctor hides his keys to the Tardis, perhaps Clara is interested in the right things.  She has already demonstrated her willingness in becoming the Impossible Girl.

With a nontechnical companion, the viewer innately is prodded to ask, what makes that character worthy to be there, whereas a technically competent one has a reason.  But that makes it perhaps more interesting to see whether the nontechnical companion can somehow be uplifted to justify being with the Doctor.

 

 

[nerys @nerys]

@ichabod Thing about Pompeii — *did* he do the right thing?  Isn’t Lobus’s descendant John Frobisher, who is forced to make deals with devilish aliens and who then kills his family and himself, thereby “righting” an imbalance created by Lobus and *his* family having been rescued by the Doctor in Pompeii?  It’s a crude equivalency — Lobus must have lots of other descendants, not likely only one branch — but metaphorically the reversal later of the good deed the Doctor did in Pompeii reminds us that all deeds have their good *and their bad* consequences (so it takes tremendous and steady nerve to act heroically at all if you think about it).

OK, I don’t remember this at all. Which means nothing, except that I don’t remember it (and that’s true for a whole lotta things). Hmmm, looks like I need to revisit some past episodes. But I take your point, and this is a theme that is well-explored by Doctor Who, the whole idea of, “Change one thing (presumably for the better), and there are repercussions down the road (not always for the better).”

I don’t think the scene in Dark Water took place at the eruption near Pompeii, only because the volcano in Dark Water was in fact an illusion that the Doctor provided for Clara to work out her stratagem in, using the “dream patch” to distort her perceptions.  It wasn’t a real location at all, and vanished as soon as he took the patch off her palm.  Although he could have used memories of Pompeii’s volcano as the model for the illusion on, I suppose.  Still, that was just a dream, just a dream, just a dream . . .

Yes, you’re right. I guess that’s where I was going with this idea: Even in a dream state, what is the purpose for choosing that place? Is it some echo from the past, similar to his reason for choosing that face? I still would like to see them explore that more, but I have a feeling that aspect of this Doctor’s regeneration rediscovery is over and done with, and we’ll be moving on.

[jphamlore @jphamlore]

Wasn’t a Time Lord being able to regenerate with someone else’s face established all the way back to Romana?  Although that was done for out-of-story reasons …

[ichabod @ichabod]

@jphamlore  On technically competent people not being as good as non-techs like Clara, because non-techs have to stretch farther to prove worthiness as companions: well, it would be interesting to see what kind of other attributes an Osgood or a Perkins would have to develop as companions to become vital to the Doctor, since he seems to have a better technical grip himself, as pilot of the Tardis, than other Docs have been.  He can do his own tech work, it seems.  For some reason, though, I’d really like to see CapDoc (or any Doc) in overalls and dirtied up, wrestling bits of the Tardis’s innards out onto a work floor with Perkins, to figure out necessary repairs or adjustments — I get a sense of some different direction that kind of experience would provide, though I’m not sure what direction that would be, other than just pseudo-scientific gobbledegook, and a little of that goes a long way.  Some demanding practicality for a bit, I guess, rather than such a strong stress on abstract intellect, and a more SF flavor?  That’s not enough; but still . . .

The tech companion would be, I think, more of a “sidekick”, stylistically speaking, and maybe the series has just moved past the point where that would be satisfying, at least for a while.  They’ve been dealing out some very heavy and unexpectedly deep emotional material in NuWho, so going back to a Batman/Robin sort of configuration would be a let-down.

The non-tech companion seems to be there for a different kind of competence: emotional competence, social competence, even ethical competence, with all of which the Doctor needs help in his dealings with humans and other species.  That’s been working very well, IMO, striking some sparks, smoldering some smoke, creating some murky but intriguing tension.  I don’t think most fans are ready to turn loose of that now — it’s a pretty rich mix, and perfectly suited to both leads’ strengths.

Let’s see where they go with S9.  It needs to be beyond that deep psychological and emotional territory, at least as it’s shaped up to this point.  Where next?

[ichabod @ichabod]

@nerys   On choosing faces . . . are we sure the Doctor *does* choose his new face?  Has he always regenerated inside the Tardis?  Maybe the Tardis makes that choice for him, for reasons of “her” own — he does say in Deep Breath “I never know where the faces come from.”  They just arrive, and he’s stuck with the new one.  So could the choice of faces by a way the Tardis has come up with to keep him on message, since she also has recently taken up this habit of taking him where it thinks/knows he needs to be?  It could be the Tardis using a face fem the past to remind him of something, not himself talking to himself at all.  Or even the Time Lords themselves, since they’re in charge of regenerations in a larger sense, even from their pocket universe hide out?

Oh, that’s just bonkers . . .

[jphamlore @jphamlore]

@ichabod  Well spoken.  The right non-tech like Clara thinks first of the Doctor after being thrown into having all of time and space open to them with the ability to speak any language; whereas I think a tech-oriented person like Perkins or Osgood would not be paying such emotional attention.

Back to the episode, I wonder if the Doctor fully knows that Time Lords don’t need to die, they just get absorbed into the Matrix.  This can be deduced even from the classic series when the image of Rassilon appeared at the end of the Five Doctors and from Time Lords being able to transfer lives as was the goal of the Valeyard.  The reason they don’t live forever openly is they suffer emotional damage and eventually become unstable.  One can ask as the Master asks in this episode, what about editing someone after uploading them?  The answer again is shown in this episode, because one might be fearful that too much editing changes the identity.

 

[IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan @pedant]

@denvaldron

As for being concise, that’s just a tool.

No. It is a craft and, in this waffly age of epic fantasy, perhaps the single most underrated. I know many perfectly decent writers who are pathologically incapable of meeting a deadline because they are incapable of writing to  a brief and being concise.

Maybe that is as good a working definition of a hack as any:  a writer who can meet a brief to deadline.

That is something that

Every.

Single.

Doctor Who

Writer

Ever

Has been able to do.

It is a craft that not all writers have the skill set (including the freedom from ego) to pull off.

[DenValdron @denvaldron]

Craftsmanship is all about tools, and being skilled in their use.

Working to a deadline is the definition of a professional.

Not giving a shit about the work is a definition of a hack.

You don’t have to be a professional to be a hack.

As for being concise, I refer you to Mr. Faulkner. He never used one adjective where ten or twelve would do.

[DenValdron @denvaldron]

Are we having a fight?  Do we really need to?  If it’s all the same to you, I don’t see the point.

[Craig @craig Emperor]

@bluesqueakpip @denvaldron @ichabod @pedant and anyone I may have missed.

There seems to have been a bit of growing tension recently. Could I please ask everyone to respect each other’s opinions? I’d like the discourse on here to remain convivial. We’ve done a great job of that so far and I’d like it to continue. As it says in our Etiquette, “if you don’t agree with someone please take a deep breath and remember that it is purely a difference of opinion, we’re all different after all.”

I don’t want to see fights (and thankfully haven’t yet), especially as I value all of your contributions. If you disagree with someone I’d rather you politely explain why, rather than trying to convince them that your opinion is the correct one or, as my mother is fond of saying “If you can’t say something nice…”

I’m not blaming anyone, I just think the tone has shifted slightly and I’d like to try and pull it back to where it was.

[ichabod @ichabod]

@craig   Timely reminder much appreciated; thank you.

[DenValdron @denvaldron]

@craig  Okay, here’s the deal.  All I really want to do is write fully developed reviews of fan films that I think are worthy and make a meaningful contribution to Doctor Who and post them where people who might be interested in such things can find them.

There are a lot of fan films out there, good, bad, interesting and wretched.  It’s hard to find your way amongst them, it’s often really a hit or miss process and given Sturgeon’s law, that’s not a good way to go about things.  And yet, there are intriguing fan films, there are even brilliant ones.  They deserve to be appreciated.  What makes them work should be discussed.   There are flawed works, and those flaws should be examined, partly to understand why and what went wrong, and perhaps to forgive them.  I think that some may be worth more then “Huh, liked this” or ‘yeah, that sucked ass.’  I think that a lot of them may just deserve to be scene.

In an ideal world, I wouldn’t have to do this at all.  Someone else would have done it for me, and all I’d have to do is look up well written comprehensive reviews and then go and pick and choose among really good or interesting Doctor Who fan films that I might like to watch.  That would be perfect.  I don’t live in that world, so I’ve decided to try doing it myself, on the theory that there might be a few people out there with a similar point of view who might like this.

Now, while noodling away I might occasionally, by way of interest, look in on and participate in discussions.  I think I have that right.  I might have opinions that differ from other peoples, and other people may have views that I don’t agree with.  That’s cool.  There might be some basis for an interesting exchange of views.  My interest in topics is not unlimited – I couldn’t care less, for instance, whether Missy placed the Doctors hand on her left or her right tit, or the significance of her kissing his nose after she kissed his mouth.  I understand people getting into that, that’s fine,  I just don’t invest.  I dislike Clara Oswald as a character and think she’s bad for the show, but I’m not staying up all night throwing darts at a picture of her face.  Neverthless, I might still participate in discussions to the point of making my views felt.

I have no interest in flame wars, argument for the sake of argument, personal attacks and all that passive aggressive bullshit that we sometimes find on the internet.   I massively do not care what people think of me, especially on the internet.  None of us know each other personally, we’re all just collections of electrons lighting up each other’s computer screens in lines of text.  That’s not something to build much of a relationship on, either love or hate.

I do not especially care to cause offense.  I try to be polite and courteous.  I try to avoid personal attacks and aspersions.  If I offend someone over something, and have it pointed out to me, assuming its legitimate offense and unintended, I am inclined to apologize.  I don’t normally intend to tread on toes, and where I’ve done so, or violated unwritten rules, I am happy to make amends, if it is explained to me.  But I don’t apologize for breathing, and I don’t apologize for having opinions, even if  they are disliked.

I have explained this to you:   I am not a nice person.  If I get into it, I don’t hold back. I don’t respect boundaries.  My only goal will be to find a way to make it hurt… a lot.  I will be very unpleasant.  It really is a good thing not to go there.  I don’t particularly like not being a nice person and I try to guard against.  I set great stock in trying to be polite for that reason.  But I am of an age where you learn to accept your true nature for good or ill.

As for Bluesqueekpip or whatever his name is (I’m not good with names so it’s not a deliberate effort to give offense if I’ve got it wrong) as for him – we seem to have been on the edge of getting into something.   However, our last interaction was quite civil and possibly even friendly.  If he (she?) is good with that, then I’m good with that.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go back to what I was doing, and posting reviews now and again.  I would invite you and anyone else to read them, if you have a mind to.  But if you want my real feelings, I’d much rather you watched some of these videos, because they are quite amazing and people have worked amazingly hard for them – that is something to appreciate and treasure.

Be well.

[ichabod @ichabod]

@nerys   RE the volcano scene:  “Even in a dream state, what is the purpose for choosing that place? Is it some echo from the past, similar to his reason for choosing that face? I still would like to see them explore that more . . . ”

Maybe we will, if the “this face” issue is addressed by an actual return to the Pompeii/Vesuvius episode.  I’d be content, though, with what we got: the  clever use of a brief, typical vision of “Hell” — a desperate betrayal on the edge of an erupting volcano — and then an actual visit to the cold, technological Hell/Heaven devised by MissMaster, where the dead become part of the operating system of a high-tech weapon of mass destruction commanded by a raving lunatic.

Very satisfying, IMO, although it’s about the purpose of the writers in choosing that place, not the Doctor’s choice of an illusory Vesuvius (or some other volcano) for the confrontation with Clara.  That one’s easy, though: Clara asked to go visit an active volcano (so she could use lava to melt the Tardis keys).

[Craig @craig Emperor]

@ichabod No probs 🙂

@denvaldron Many thanks and I completely understand. I have enjoyed those of your reviews I’ve had time to read although have not quite found the time to watch any of the films yet. But I will. I have also appreciated your earlier writing on this site, and your writings on Edgar Rice Burroughs elsewhere.

We have tried to create a space where you will not find “flame wars, argument for the sake of argument, personal attacks and all that passive aggressive bullshit”. We occasionally falter, nobody’s perfect, but overall I think we do very well, especially compared to some other sites.

Your opinions are very welcome and I hope that you will find this site a friendly place where you will not find the need to ever be unpleasant. On this site many of us ARE more than a collection of electrons. It’s why I use my real name and my email address is open to all. Some of us have even met up in real life. I hope you find it, as many have, a welcoming place to continue to visit and participate.

[Anonymous @]

  @denvaldron I think what you’ve contributed is great in the area of fan films – if I hadn’t seen the positive reviews and obvious enthusiasm, I wouldn’t have watched them. Until recently, my belief in fan stuff was pretty much that it was “fan wank” and I’ve changed my mind about that. This site in particular has been able to introduce me to so many different things, that, as a bit of an arrogant person, I would have had huge pleasure in discrediting! Like Buffy, for instance. It was @jimthefish and @pedant who switched me on to that particular show and Angel. I was bedazzled. Still am.

So, onwards and upwards for this site. There are times, due to illness, where I might spend weeks in bed or hospital and so reading the compassionate and interesting theories of members here has caused me to feel really uplifted. When you say the following, I do tend to worry a tad:

“I am not a nice person.  If I get into it, I don’t hold back..  None of us know each other personally, we’re all just collections of electrons lighting up each other’s computer screens in lines of text. “

I think you are a nice person (maybe you’re hard on yourself there?) and you’ve always been polite where I’m concerned. Some of us do know each other personally. In the last 18 months I’ve made decent friendships here. People who email me and know pretty much everything there is to know! It’s great because whilst my extended family is part English and Canadian, I’m not really up to travelling as frequently as I used to, and so these friendships anchor me to those regions in a way that I can’t do for myself (not having thousands of dollars for travel and still less the time or health necessary!).

I know that certain people were drawn to each other because they noticed something other than a love for Who -whether it be music (which is my area) or writing or just a touch of something ‘other’ that created a firm bond which continues to grow. This is something really special in an internet age of quick debates where people can hide behind  usernames with little idea about gender, political or theological interest.

Here, I enjoy the light musical conversations we have with @whisht and @arbutus and @scaryb all who have brought entertainment, decorum, exquisite knowledge and a love of humour -the wry and the silly 🙂

Cheers to those who continue to make it so, particularly the mods. It’s not easy! Now, off to read your next blog…. 🙂 Also, I’m waaay off topic….Can I say this little site (which is growing huge!) is a slice of ‘heaven’, not just a matrix?

Kindest, puro

 

[nerys @nerys]

@ichabod That one’s easy, though: Clara asked to go visit an active volcano (so she could use lava to melt the Tardis keys).

True enough, it was Clara’s prompt which set that in motion. I still like the potential allegory with Vesuvius … but maybe that’s just me wanting to read more into the scene than what was there.

[DenValdron @denvaldron]

@purofilion   We find out about terrific stuff, either by stumbling across it ourselves, or having people lead us to it.  So it’s cool.

You’re correct in that a lot of fan films are terrible, and really of interest only to their makers and immediate family.  But within those terms, that’s cool.

But there are terrific and interesting ones, and if I can lead you to one or two that you really enjoy, then I’m happy.  I do enjoy your comments on the videos you watched.  You’re a perceptive observer, and spot things I missed.

As for whether I’m a nice person or not, we’ll agree to disagree.  😉

[ichabod @ichabod]

@nerys  About reading more into a scene than “what was there” — I do that all the time, and I do it with pleasure because there’s *always* more “in the scene” than whatever the writer had in mind to put there.  The printed story is a machine that transfers a concept from the author’s mind to the reader’s — but the reader has to reconstruct the story in her mind from the coded signals of printed words, so every reader’s head-version is unique.  Same with the best of TV, I think.

As long as people return to a story, in whatever form, and find new and different meanings and subtexts in it, to me that means that the work has a spark of life in it.  That’s what creators hope will be the future of their creations: interpretation, re-interpretation, argument, a place for their work in the continuing cultural conversation, lasting, you hope, after your own life-spark has gone out.  You draw your material from the culture, shape it, and then feed it back into the culture through the minds of your audience.

I once write a sort of fan-fiction piece changing basic assumptions built into “The Phantom of the Opera” in all its versions.  I wanted to see how the story went if Christine was a stage-wise young singer used to dealing with controlling men, instead of a prize — a half-imbecilic but talented child — fought over by a dashing aristocrat and a homicidal, sociopathic genius.  That’s what I put into the story.

Imagine my surprise when a psychiatrist in New York began e-mailing me what amounted to a searching and perceptive psychological diagnosis of the Phantom as I’d presented him, including a theory that the Phantom’s character had been partially shaped by the death of an infant sibling.  That was what the psychiatrist *found* in my version of the story, although no such idea had ever entered my mind; yet his analysis rang true.  His playful exploration of the story enhanced it for him, and for me too.  He built out something that I hadn’t known could be there, let alone planted there myself.

I think that’s what we do here (together, thanks to the internet) when we analyze and bonkerize DW; we weave a creative response to what the writers and actors have made for us to play with.  I don’t see anything to apologize for in that.  It demonstrates that they’ve done a good job, providing entertainment that continues to occupy and exercise the interested viewer’s mind long after the broadcast is over.

 

[ichabod @ichabod]

@nerys   Up the page, you said you didn’t remember John Frobisher, the bureaucrat, a descendant of Lobus C. — quite rightly, since Frobisher’s story was not DW but Torchwood, the story about the aliens who come demanding 10% of the world’s children.  The Frobisher character is the second “old” use of CapDoc’s face in the DW/Torchwood universe, Lobus being the first, and I think somebody came up with the idea that Frobisher looks like Lobus C. because he is a descendant of that man’s progeny.

I don’t think it’s established to be so in Torchwood, so the writers may just ignore that or throw it away when they get to doing their own explanation, in S9, of where CapDoc got that face, why it’s a face familiar to us from two previous characters in the DW/Torchwood universe.  I’m a bit hazy as to whether in fact DW and Torchwood actually are meant to share the same universe, because I didn’t take to Torchwood and didn’t stay with it or get into conversations about it.

[DenValdron @denvaldron]

@ichabod    A few points.   First, I don’t believe that the Doctor ever met John Frobisher.  So assuming that there was some conscious or unconscious volition in choosing a particular face the Doctor may have been influenced by Lobus.  But not by Frobisher.

Second,  Vesuvius explostion was 79 AD.  Lobus was a quite mature man at that time, and he and his life were likely past childbearing.  His children were grown.  assuming reproduction at say 60 AD, and assuming an average 30 years from birth to breeding, that’s 65 generations.  Now assuming no substantial incest, Lobus’ particular set of genes is halved every generation.  That is, Lobus contributes half the genes to his children.  His children contribute half the genes to his grandchildren.

After 5 generations, Lobus will account for roughly 3% of his descendants DNA, less than a thirtieth.  After 10 generations its roughly 0.1% or one tenth of one per cent, or one thousandth of Lobus’ DNA, by the twentieth generation, we’re down to 0.0001% or one millionth.   There’s 45 more generations to go…

Maybe it makes some goofy sense in a literary way to connect Lobus and Frobisher and visit the sins, salvations and decisions of one on another.  But biologically and logically there’s no sense to it at all.   Realistically, Lobus genes may have theoretically spread to hundreds of thousands or even millions in 65 generations,  but even with generations of controlled heavy duty incest, Lobus actual genetic contribution… is simply meaningless.

As for Torchwood, technically it is in the same Universe as Doctor Who.  The central figure – Captain Jack Harkness and his backstory of the Time Patrol originates in the Ecclestone season.  Torchwood as an institution originates in the Tenant era.  The Doctor Who story of the Cyberman invasion of Canary Wharf is referenced directly in the Torchwood episode, Cyberwoman.  Harkness’ character returns from Torchwood to guest in Doctor Who a couple of times.  On one of those occasions, other Torchwood characters appear on Who.  Martha Jones, after leaving the Doctor, shows up in a few episodes of Torchwood.  The Doctor’s severed hand from Tenant’s beginning appears as a background prop through Torchwood’s first season.  There’s just endless cross-references.   The final season of Torchwood does not mention the Doctor by name (at least I don’t think so).  But there are several unmistakeable references to him.

But as I’ve argued, this is all basically irrelevant when it comes to Lobus and Frobisher.   Frobisher is just a guy who coincidentally looks like Lobus.   Hell, we run across dead ringers all the time even within our own span of time.  Stretch that out 2000 years…

 

 

 

 

[DenValdron @denvaldron]

None of this, of course, means anything in the Doctor Who/Torchwood verse, because they can just make up any rules or situations they want.

However, in terms of production decisions, I’d consider it vanishingly remote that Capaldi was hired on to play Frobisher because he’d played Lobus.   To the extent that was a decision in casting, it would just be part of his resume.  I don’t believe that anyone involved with Torchwood at the time (and it was a completely different production crew, set of writers, directors, producers and decision makers) sat there thinking …  ‘Hmmm, he played Lobus, we can use that.”

It’s possible that in choosing Capaldi, Moffet was paying attention to both Lobus and Frobisher and thinking he could use it, but it’s in a post-facto sense.  No masterplans around.  As to what goes on in Moffet’s mind, I’ll not speculate.

[nerys @nerys]

@ichabod Thank you for that clarification! I was starting to worry I was having a Doctor Who “blackout”! Glad to know that’s not the case. You are correct, I never got around to watching Torchwood. That’s what annoys me about crossover episodes or interlinked stories. They’re fine as long as viewers are keeping up with both series. But it’s very odd to see a TV series on Netflix, for example, and know that there are gaps in the story because of a crossover episode with another series. One series is available on Netflix, but the other isn’t, so there’s no way to “complete” the story.

[DenValdron @denvaldron]

For what it’s worth, Torchwood and Doctor Who didn’t cross over strongly.   There wasn’t a lot leakage the other way, with Torchwood characters, ideas, monsters, stories crossing back into Doctor Who.  Mostly, the transmission was from Doctor Who to Torchwood, with a key Torchwood character coming back to Doctor Who now and then.

The Sarah Jane Adventures were also in continuity with Doctor Who with Sarah Jane encountering the Slitheen family, the Judoon and the Sontarans.  In the case of the Slitheen and Sontarans, their stories were direct spin offs from their encounters with the Doctor in his main series.  You didn’t need to know the Doctor Who stories in Sarah Jane to appreciate those stories though, and if you were just watching Doctor Who you didn’t need to know the Sarah Jane stories at all.  Both the Tenant and Smith Doctors made appearances in Sarah Jane though, something that they never did with the Torchwood series.  As with Torchwood, a lot of stuff there doesn’t make it upstairs to Doctor Who.

Oddly, Sarah Jane is in continuity with the David Tennant CGI Doctor Who story ‘Dreamland’ – sharing the robotic ‘Men in Black’ and a few other tropes, images and story points.  I suppose that means Dreamland is canon through the back door.  Time, it’s wibbly wobbly stuff.

Basically, shared universe, some points of contact, but not a lot of real crossovers.

[ichabod @ichabod]

@denvaldron Thanks for working these things out. I’ve generally thought of the two previous Capaldi roles together (that is, as both “needing” an explanation (if you’re the sort who needs one — I’m not, but it does keep cropping up). This comes from the many articles and interviews in which both doppelgängers* are raised as if they are the same issue:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-09-30/doctor-who-steven-moffat-has-an-explanation-for-peter-capaldis-earlier-appearances

and, from a Den of Geek article: “Many will remember even further back when he appeared as a supporting character in David Tennant and Catherine Tate adventure The Fires Of Pompeii. He also popped up as a whole different character in Torchwood,” and the article goes on to refer to this “solution” supposedly suggested by RTD some years ago (the the question of both previous “faces”) which Moffat is said to have been mulling over and considering applying to S9. So thanks for the clarification.

I a lot of fans use a dose of the same, because these dopples do keep getting mentioned together as one puzzle with a solution (probably) in the offing, and I know I’m certainly not the only one who hasn’t worked out the “shared universe” thing and the extent of “leakage”. Maybe put your analysis in at one of the other discussion sites as an “article”  — doctorwhotv.uk.com I think is one that posts contributions as articles, for discussion?  If they put it up, I’m sure the fans there would enjoy making a meal of it, and nothing says you have to stick around and answer them (at least, I think nothing not — I’ve never tried to contribute, except comments).  I haven’t seen any breakdowns of the shared Twood and DW universe anywhere else (maybe buried in past discussions somewhere, but life’s too short).

[ichabod @ichabod]

@nerys  Yep — for me, too, Torchwood is primarily an annoying source of confusion about all things Doctor.  I watched T’swood for a while, but just couldn’t latch onto it as an interest — but let me continue this comment on the sofa, since it’s not really DiH related.

[DenValdron @denvaldron]

Well, I look at it this way.   If the Doctor has some degree of subconscious or conscious control over his regenerations, then he may well be influenced by Lobus and is borrowing his face.

However, the Doctor never ever ever met Frobisher, so far as we know, and had no significant interaction with him… at least, not one that was ever depicted or recorded.  So Frobisher is irrelevant.

The only way Frobisher would be relevant is if the Doctor’s regeneration was influenced by some external force which had knowledge or contact with Frobisher and/or Lobus, and inserted them into the Doctor, or possibly manipulated Lobus to cause his reappearance or at least his facial reappearance in Frobisher for its own inscrutable reasons.

As we’ve yet to see signs of such an entity at work and proximate I tend to discount it.  But hypothetically, it could be some super-plot by Missy.  Or by the Beast, etc.

 

 

[DenValdron @denvaldron]

First two seasons of Torchwood were fine.  Fun, off the wall, sexy and campy.

Season three stepped down quite a bit.  No longer fun.  Dark, gay-angsty, mean-spirited.

Season four was like stepping off a cliff.

Notice how there was no season five?  That’s because they spent the previous four seasons systematically and with gathering speed eviscerating everything that made the show watchable.

But that’s just me.

[Anonymous @]

@denvaldron

Oh boy, totally agree re Torchwood. It just never got to me in the way I thought it would. The whole black uniform, tough walk (always filmed in slo mo which I hate!), the black cars, the nasty character (the young male doctor) and the sweet character who is in love with him (played by the Asian actress who is great in so many other things -recently Midsomer Murders @ichabod) and then Jack who never tells them anything and, typically, has to be attracted to the new female chick (the one in Doctor Who, who played Gwyn -or is she Gwyn in T/wood?) who then admires his ‘intentions’ even though he constantly fibs. And then the heartsick gay chap who moons over Jack. Nope. It seemed like a soap opera -and I don’t diss the work that goes into soaps actually, so I’m being very patient!

The 1st season was OK (I suppose) and then it was just more of the same. There was an episode probably entitled “meat” which had a huge whale lying in a factory and butchers were selling pieces of this poor creature at a stunning profit. CGI looked great…but the plot…typically, after the first shot is fired, it all goes to hell.

Torchwood. Bah!

I should add that as a character in the reboot with Eccleston, Jack had a nice ‘situation’ in Who -he really worked well in those episodes, though, with Tennant, he was probably brought back for audience appreciation. I just don’t think John Barrowman is such a great actor. Boy, can he talk, though! Have you seen him on any panels? He totally dives in and never, ever, shuts up. Once, he saw a marine and invited him for a ‘marine sandwich’ with John’s own partner. No doubt all a ‘joke’, but bloody pathetic and somewhat tasteless.

[Anonymous @]

Oh Blimey, mod attack! I thought I was On The Sofa. Why am I talking about this in DiH?

[ichabod @ichabod]

@denvaldron  Oh, I agree — Frobisher is irrelevant to CapDoc’s face-choice unless there’s some deliberate manipulation going on behind the scenes that *made* him relevant but in a hidden way.  Many fans, though, seem to have no problem bracketing Lobus and Frobisher together as being part what needs to be explained in S9.  I think that’s a product of confusion of just how the T/wood universe and the DW universe overlap/are one/touch each other, on which your breakdown of the contacts between them throws clarifying light.

[Anonymous @]

@denvaldron @ichabod

Re Peter Capaldi’s previous DW/Torchwood appearances.

There was a fan theory on another site (which, typically, I can’t find now) that attempted to connect Caeciliuis and Frobisher to The 12th Doctor by suggesting that they were, in fact, The Doctor himself.

Firstly, Caecilius.

The character was based on a the real-life Lucius Caecilius Iucundus, a banker who lived in Pompeii between 20AD – 62AD with his wife (Metella) and two sons (not son & daughter) Caecilius Iucundus Metellus and Quintus Caecilius Iucundus. Because all records of Lucius end in 62AD, it’s believed he was killed during the earthquake of the same year.

See more about the life of the real Caecilius on Wikipedia

The theory linking Caecilius to The Doctor is this…

At some point, The Doctor discovers that Caecilius had died in 62AD and, in order to preserve the timeline, goes back to the moment when Lucius dies. He then undergoes the transformation to human using the Chameleon Arch and takes the place of Caecilius. Clara is lurking in the background doing time-touristy stuff whilst watching over The Doctor (as Martha did) and waiting for the moment to give him his fob-watch.

With regards to Frobisher, the link is tenuaous at best and for me is where it begins to fall apart.

For reasons unknown*, at some point between Frobisher taking possesion of the gun that Bridget aquired for him and his return home, The Doctor (once more Chameleon arched) takes Frobisher’s place and takes ‘his’ family upstairs.

As the bedroom door was closed we don’t actually see what happens. The theory suggested that ‘Frobisher’ didn’t kill his wife , daughters and himself but instead just fired four shots into the floor (or ceiling or whatever) before bundling them into the TARDIS which was already in the bedroom but in ‘stealth’ mode (as in the Oval Office in The Impossible Astronaut). The theory suggests that The Doctor’s reason for doing this is that, as an adult, one of the real Frobisher’s daughters was supposed to be involved in some grand ‘history defining moment’ for humanity. What that ‘history defining moment’ could be though is anyones guess.

I quite like the ‘Caecilius Theory’ and while there’re more than a few dodgy points in the ‘Frobisher Theory’, it could work if the Steven Moffat (or another writer) were to fill in the blanks regarding what’s so important about saving Frobisher and/or his family.

Personally, while it would be interesting to know what RTD’s explanation for their similarity is,  I don’t really see a need to explain why The Doctor looks like previous characters – no reason was ever given for the 6th Doctor looking like Commander Maxil (The Arc of Infinity) and the show has managed to survive 😉

*IMO as soon as the phrase ‘For reasons unknown’ is bandied about, it invalidates any theory – no matter how good that theory may be)

[jphamlore @jphamlore]

Didn’t Romana regenerate to have the face of another person without even suffering grievous injury?  I would accept about any explanation at this point.

[PaperMoon @papermoon]

@jphamlore I remember Romana going through several options before choosing the face she ended up with, but, I watched this episode a long time ago so had to look it up on wiki. Apparently, she chose the face of Princess Astra. I’m not sure if any explanation has since been given for it, but from what I understand there is a third Romana in the novels and a fourth in the audios, but I don’t know if any explanation was given in either of those.

[Anonymous @]

@fatmaninabox so Caecilius dead in 62 AD could never have been around in 79AD when Vesuvius erupted?

So this means the Doctor hung around from 62 to 79 AD to keep him ‘alive’ -though it was the Doctor and not Caecilius? No, that can’t be right! I must have  misread what you wrote?

Confused Puro (pretty typical actually)

[Anonymous @]

Okay I said I wasn’t gonna reply but after Phaseshift’s last obnoxious and frankly vicious message I feel I have to reply.

Okay where to begin.

To start with this here

“I genuinely don’t mind what your views are. I welcome views opposed to mine as long as they are well argued and don’t rely on the sad detritus of uninformed generalisation to try to provoke argument”

That’s a laugh right there. Well argued? You can’t make any kind of an argument, I raise perfectly reasonable arguments against Missy and the current direction the series is going and all you do is just label vicious and personal insults against my intelligence and my sexuality too.

“You appear to have a problem with shagging. I make no value judgement.”, “Because you are a fricking idiot”.

All comments like that do is make it appear that you actually can’t offer any kind of defense of the show the way it is right now so you just have to call someone who doesn’t like it an idiot or a virgin or any other cliched insult you can dredge up against someone who doesn’t share your opinion.

For instance  I say that its ridiculous to imagine Missy is the same villain as Delgado for a number of reasons. Namely the fact that Roger Delgado had imagined the Master as secretely being the Doctors brother. They were going to reveal that in Delgado’s last ever story The Final Game which was never made due to his untimely death. Watch the Planet of the Spiders DVD and Jon Pertwee himself says that the Doctor and the Master were really in his and Rogers minds brothers and that he felt  it was the only explanation that makes sense as to why they could never kill each other. Barry Letts also says on the tribute to Delgado on the Frontier in Space DVD that they were going to reveal that they were brothers. It was Delgado HIMSELF that came up with the idea in fact from when he first started playing the character.

Missy meanwhile wants to shag the Doctors brains out and is in love with him and never says anything to him that isn’t practically a chat up line or an innuendo or a little flirtation. “You saved me”, “its our Paris”, “oh I might shoot Clara in a jealous rage don’t you find that sexy”, “you have not received the special greeting”, “my hearts are maintained by the Doctor”, “show a bad girl how its done”. Then there is the fact that Delgado was the definition of elegant and restrained evil and menace whilst Missy is a cackling OTT lunatic.

Then there is the fact that Missy just kills for no reason whilst Delgado’s Master says that killing is a regrettable necessity. Then there is the fact that Delgado’s Master desires ultimate power over the universe whilst Missy desires to win the Doctor back!

Seriously could anyone imagine Delgado’s Master a character conceived as being The Doctors brother French kissing him? Could you imagine Delgado’s Master just zapping Osgood for no reason rather than either manipulating her or doing his “YOU WILL OBEY ME” trademark to her? Could you imagine Delgado giving up a whole army of Cybermen to sleep with the Doctor? No you couldn’t, but your response to that well reasoned argument is the following.

“The failure of your imagination in these circumstances has nothing to do with the show, casting and writing I’m sure”

Again yet another petty insult about my apparent lack of imagination. But you still haven’t offered any actual defense of Missy’s character or how she relates to Delgado’s Master. Just “You’re an unimaginative, moron virgin” WOW you really are a brilliant debater aren’t you?

Oh and as for you JimTheFish tell me what insults did I hurl at regular users. Go on I want an exact quote. The only one I can think of is “you don’t know anything about storytelling” but I simply used the quote that HE had used against someone else. Also I apologized for it even though it was just using the very insult HE had used against another user and HE couldn’t hack it when it was said back to him as a joke.

So go on JimTheFish where were the insults I labelled at users here go on JimTheFish give me quotes. And as for kicking my ass now I have to laugh.

I say killing Osgood was a mistake as Ingrid Oliver is a great actress and Osgood has potential as a character. What’s the response I get from people here?

“Coy Tart” You are a Moron” “You have a problem with sex” ” You are an unpleasant troll”. WOW yeah my points were rubbished well and truly.

And as for your point about Delgado and Pertwee

“First of all, what makes you think that Delgado and the 3rd Doc didn’t want to shag each other? I think you could make (and some have) a pretty good case that they do”

LOL watch the Planet of The Spiders DVD and there is an interview with Pertwee where he says that they were meant to be brothers. This is more or less the quote “I asked Roger how come we were never able to bump each other off and he said I’ll tell you why its because the Master and the Doctor are actually brothers and I thought it was a marvellous idea as it was the only possible explanation that made sense.”

There from Pertwee’s own mouth. So unless you think that the makers of Doctor Who, a family show in the 70’s intended for two characters who were meant to be brothers, one of whom was a role model and hero to little boys, to be shagging each other then no I don’t think you can make any kind of an argument that they were meant to be sleeping together.

Oh and as for your other argument that you thought kicked my ass or put me right.

“And Moffatt is quite right in that ALL the writers of the original series were hacks. They were jobbing writers who were contracted to write X episodes of a children’s teatime TV drama. That’s the very essence of being a hack, whether it be in journalism, writing pulp quickie novels or in TV scriptwriting. That they often produced something rather wonderful in the process doesn’t mean that they weren’t hacks.”

Yes but he didn’t mean it that way did he? Here is the full quote from Moffat where he pretty much trashes all of Classic Who.

“Even for the 60’s, it was slow. If you look at the first episode of Doctor Who, that betrays the lie that it’s just the 60’s, because that first episode’s really good. The rest of it’s shit. I, Claudius had a brilliant script and a cast of brilliant actors. These are two things we can’t say, in all forgiveness, about some periods of Doctor Who.  When I look back at Doctor Who now, I laugh at it fondly. As a television professional, I think ‘How did these guys get a paycheque every week?’. Nothing from the black and white days, with the exception of the pilot episode, should have got out of the building. They should have been clubbing those guys to death. You’ve got an old guy in the lead who can’t remember his lines. You’ve got Patrick Troughton, who was a good actor, but his companions – how did they get their Equity card? They’re unimaginably bad. Once you get to the colour stuff, some of it’s watchable, but it’s laughable. Mostly now, looking back, I’m startled by it.  Doctor Who wasn’t limited by the times or the style that were prevalent then. It was limited by the relatively meagre talent of the people who were working on it. Don’t you think it’s fair to say that Doctor Who was a great idea that happened to the wrong people?”

So there its not how you said it was at all.

Also as for this rubbish about how people who don’t want a female Doctor just need to grow up that is a ridiculous sweeping generalisation if ever I have heard one. You probably think all guys who don’t want a female Doctor can’t stand women in lead roles. Two of my fave series are Buffy and Xena. PS Callisto, Xena’s archenemy is a much, much, much better villain than Missy. Both are basically the same idea a female version of Batman’s archenemy The Joker, but my god is Callisto so much better written and acted!

Personally I don’t want a female Doctor as its IMO a stupid idea and lazy and badly thought out.

And Missy certainly hasn’t convinced me that it would work. Its a shame as a female Master could have worked. The Master could have easily nicked a woman’s body like Bruce or Tremas and it would have worked provided that she was written as the Master IE a cold, steely, charming, manipulative genius as opposed to a flirty, sexy, femme fatale who wants to sleep with the Doctor and calls herself Missy!

And I find it hilarious that the very thing that started this debate off was me saying it was a mistake to kill Osgood off which was met with huge opposition from you all, you all said that Osgood had to stay dead, and now it turns out that Osgood is returning after all.

Clearly Moffat agrees with me that it would have been a mistake to waste Ingrid Oliver and the character of Osgood hence why he is bringing her back for 2 episodes!

Now fair enough I admit I was wrong to say that Moffat was bad for killing her off, but to be fair that was only because he had made out he had killed her off for good. I believed his lies, but so did you lot as well and clearly he who had always intended to bring her back would have agreed with me that wasting Ingrid Oliver like that who he himself described as fabulous would have been a big mistake.

And I never dismissed Moffat as a writer. Yes I said Osgood’s death was hack writing, which if that had been her final end it would have been, but fortunately it isn’t, but I never dismissed him as a hack writer overall.

I have defended him many times. I wrote a whole piece about why he hasn’t ruined Who. Yes I despise series 8, but I still appreciate how popular he has made the show. Its huge in areas it was never popular before like Europe and Brazil where it was until just a few years ago completely obscure. Thanks to Moffat there is now a huge Doctor Who tour in Brazil!

I also praised series 5-7 too, in fact I was an ardent defender of series 7 and the 50th when many people turned on it. I praised his handling of the character of the Doctor. In fact I have said I feel that his two incarnations of the Doctor 11 and 12 are among the best thanks to him as he cast them, gave the actors freedom in the role and had a really good grip on the Doctors character.

However when he turns the Brig into a Cybermen, makes the Master into the Doctors lover (he himself referred to the Master as the Doctors ex!) then yeah I am not gonna approve of it.

I also by the way didn’t slate Michelle Gomez either! I said her performance as Missy was awful, but  also acknowledge that was the script I said she was a fabulous actress in other things like Green Wing. I said she was a very charismatic, engaging and energeti, unique performer and that she would have been brilliant as The Rani.

So no I was not a troll. I debated reasonably, did not make any personal jibes to anyone here, did not just dismiss anyone who didn’t share the same opinion as me, did not make remarks about people’s sexualities, did not label anyone a troll that was YOU BOTH!

Take a tip from Ichabod. He disagrees with me. He thinks Delgado played the role with a hint of homoeroticism I strongly disagree (otherwise I’d have to think that Delgado wanted the Master to shag his own brother!) However he is a perfectly fine user who debated his points reasonably and intelligently and didn’t resort to name calling or things like this
<div class=”post-39828 reply type-reply status-publish hentry odd bbp-parent-forum-29932 bbp-parent-topic-35010 bbp-reply-position-739 user-id-15″>
<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

“You hear that sound? No? That’s because it’s a sad song played on the world’s smallest violin. Cheerio.”

LOL such maturity, such wit, such originality you’re so wasted on this forum.

</div>
</div>
<div id=”post-39834″ class=”bbp-reply-header”></div>
 

 

 

[lisa @lisa]

@Burrunjor Hi I agree that its very difficult to make a cross over between the Delgado
and Missy masters. Totally different iterations. It is the same for me with various Doctor
iterations regardless of the gender thing. I can also see how you might make the take away of
the Doctor and Miss/Master being siblings. I imagine it could be that they could have shared
1 parent but not both and I’m basing that on the Simm master speaking about ‘his’ fathers estates.
But a lot of us have latched onto Missy and appreciate how she is being portrayed. There is
even conjecture that she is not a regeneration but maybe in fact a download from the Matrix.
In any case I am very optimistic for lots more surprises in season 9. So try to be a bit less
cynical cause it may shake out that you will be happy about where it goes. 🙂

[Anonymous @]

Don’t worry Lisa I will  not be whining about Missy any more. I was definitely wrong to go on about it so long adn I appreciate that that might have begun to annoy fans of her character always having to defend their position on her. I hope you and all the other Missy fans enjoy Series 9. I wish the series well not that it needs it as it is huge around the globe. I am not sure I will be watching the Missy eps though.

My biggest gripe is the really just the romantic angle. I would rather have had the Rani than a female Master, but a female Master could have been fine and Michelle Gomez is a damn fine actress. Still I just HATE the way Moffat made the Master love the Doctor and try and seduce him. I am sorry but for me it will always feel like a parody.

I kinda wish they had gone done the brother route as that would have eliminated the romantic angle once and for all. Why fans ship the Doctor and the Master I have no idea? They work better as enemies. Adding in that they want to shag each other just feels to me at least childish. Its like school boy humor “ooh why are you so obsessed with him is he your boyfriend”. Though I appreciate that some of you might find their relationship more 3 dimensional with the romantic aspect and that’s fine, but I just don’t like it. The Master is more of a Moriarty villain, his greatest challenge, rather than a Catwoman type of villain, his jealous ex!

I will be watching the Osgood two parter though as I love Ingrid Oliver and hopefully this will give her more to do in the role of Osgood. Again apologies to Moffat for getting angry at “killing”  her off. Should always remember rule 1 Moffat lies!

[Anonymous @]

@Burrunjor this is a real problem for me too. The idea that there are people who have seemingly made you feel small. The problem is, is that when you state: “believed his lies, but so did you lot as well” you’re essentially saying that when a writer and producer plays some tricks (in order to hide a key plot point -which, by the way you spoiled for me because I never knew Osgood was returning) “he lies”.

The implication is that Moffat is a “bad person” or a malicious writer -now I’m sure you don’t believe that? So, in the end, it’s about expression. I think people became angry because of how you said things -no real evidence and a kind of anger that the way things were going, were not the things you personally like in a story. For instance I am unhappy Osgood is coming back but I would write this: “I believe Osgood’s death was a necessary pay off. To lose a loved character shows the true evil encapsulated by Missy the Master. We can see how far she’s prepared to go. She’s a game player and sees people the Doctor cares for as mere play things”.

I would NOT write: “Missy is an idiot and killing off Osgood made Moffat look like a dickhead. They should have kept her or done something else with Missy. I hate all the shagging comments. They’re dumb”.

See? That’s not what you wrote but it has similar ideas or ways or expression which are not common on this site, in general.

I could also say “Missy shouldn’t be portrayed as a sexualised creature as in many past series it appeared, on balance, that the Master and the Doctor were actually brothers”. Then I’d provide the evidence. As you did, above. But I wouldn’t revert to crass “this is stupid” comments even if you state “IMO”. That’s usually a way of quickly saying “it’s my opinion so therefore it’s OK”, when really it isn’t if you use tawdry language to deride an actor or a character.

Also, you have your own opinions in claiming that Pertwee, the Doctor didn’t have sex with the Master. Your evidence? That Pertwee  an actor, not the writer, also had opinions about how and why the Doctor and the Master weren’t having sex or why they couldn’t kill each other. These are  opinions only. Whether it comes out of his mouth, or not, is not really relevant. I think he would be aware that times change. That his opinions would be carefully monitored. That it was seen, then, as a children’s show. He had strong opinions about that and I know this from other articles I’ve read. These may not be the only views, though: just Pertwee’s own. So, what you said:

“First of all, what makes you think that Delgado and the 3rd Doc didn’t want to shag each other? I think you could make (and some have) a pretty good case that they do”

LOL watch the Planet of The Spiders DVD and there is an interview with Pertwee where he says that they were meant to be brothers. This is more or less the quote “I asked Roger how come we were never able to bump each other off and he said I’ll tell you why its because the Master and the Doctor are actually brothers and I thought it was a marvellous idea as it was the only possible explanation that made sense.”

can easily be seen as an opinion – equal to yours or Moffat’s own. I personally believe that that the Doctor couldn’t kill the Master for various reasons including the clue that is in his name: healer. Also, they were the best of friends with the Dr spending much time on the Master’s estates. Anyway these ‘opinions’, whether Pertwee’s, Moffat’s or ours, are just that. Really, though, most people here have opinions that are very diverse. It’s easy to assume that we all ‘vote one way’.

You also say that a particular actor or script or idea is “stupid” and yet you don’t state why. Frankly, what people like @ichibod @cathannabel @scaryb @arbutus @lisa @jimthefish do, is to say things in a certain way: “I disagree with this plot because….” or “I find that this plot is difficult for me to understand or to like because…”. Words such as “dumb” or “stupid” tends to bring out anger in people because it’s vituperative and without support. The above writers are gentle about their approach and willing to accept others’ opinions without appearing, in a first post, as overtly cynical or angry. There are loads of other sites which are ‘angry’ places. We’re just not one of them unless some of us become ‘inflamed’ because of a particular post. They too get angry. We’re all human in the end!

Also when you say: “that the very thing that started this debate off was me saying it was a mistake to kill Osgood off which was met with huge opposition from you all” you claim EVERYONE has said something and I personally can see only a few people engaged with you.

If you tend to write this, for instance:

“Oh and as for you JimTheFish tell me what insults did I hurl at regular users. Go on I want an exact quote. The only one I can think of is “you don’t know anything about storytelling” but I simply used the quote that HE had used against someone else. Also I apologized for it even though it was just using the very insult HE had used against another user and HE couldn’t hack it when it was said back to him as a joke.

So go on JimTheFish where were the insults I labelled at users here go on JimTheFish give me quotes. And as for kicking my ass now I have to laugh.” it would really upset people. It’s very inflammatory and unconvincing. If you use a quote that someone else uses, you need to explain that (as I’ve done) and place it in bold and in quotation marks. Here we do use a slight academic tone. We use quotes, evidence and stay away from the personal. There is a tendency for people to assume certain posters are trolls if, for the first time, they appear to make strong criticisms & say nothing else positive. I can see how that would annoy people, who, like myself, first appeared 18 months ago and spoke about why I like the original Doctor Who and what my memories were. Coming straight to the page and criticising something I didn’t like, would be seen as inflammatory and I would not have received a good welcome. Of that I’m sure. You’ll find anyone who appears to just arrive and get “angry” about a plot turn is going to be treated the same way.

Had you originally explained some of your ideas as you did just now, I think you would have been able to convince more people but your first posts did come across as hateful -particularly when you say something is “stupid” and then say little else.

Similarly when you say this: “Clearly Moffat agrees with me that it would have been a mistake to waste Ingrid Oliver and the character of Osgood hence why he is bringing her back for 2 episodes” it makes it look as though Moffat is coming to you for opinions (now obviously that isn’t something you really feel but again it’s the way you express it).

I implore you to check the activity page and read my own posts, and those of the others mentioned above. We try to write in a kind manner, using less vindictive terminology. Trust me, it works.

Kindest, puro.

PS: Just as you put a lot of work into your above post, I really hope you’ll take the time to read my own and @lisa above. She dealt with the points you made specifically without resorting to an angry tone. And no, you’re not “whining”. Please keep discussing things: for as long as you’re civil and support things with evidence, I’ll engage. 🙂

 

 

[DenValdron @denvaldron]

@Burrunjor   Wowsers.  No holding back is there.   I would note that the discussion was a few weeks ago.

I agree that yes, there was a huge gap between the Delgado Master and the Gomez Mistress.   But that’s not an irreconcileable issue.  Within the series continuity, between the two of them there was the ‘walking corpse’ Master, there was the Ainsley Master who was severely loopy and apparently fairly obsessed with the Doctor, there was the Roberts Master, the Sims Master.

One could argue a progressively intense fascination with the Doctor.  The whole subtext of the Deadly Assassin is that the Master refuses to let the Doctor go and embroils him in his scheme unnecessarily.  The Ainsley Master is so consumed by the Doctor that he meddles with the Doctor’s favourite planet in mischievous ways, even the Rani comments on his obsession and remarks the he is unbalanced.  The Sims Master’s fascination with the Doctor verges on homoerotic.    So the approach given to Gomez is not impossible.  Not what I would have done but not beyond the pale either.

As to the relationship between the Pertwee Doctor and the Delgado Master, while I appreciate the behind the scenes commentary and backstory, it’s of dubious canonicity.  Originally, before Time Lords were invented, different actors and writers had different theories as to what the Doctor Was.   At some point, they were going to be voyagers from the far future of Earth.  Another writer though the Doctor was completely inhuman and had just put on a ‘human suit’ to study us.  Another had the Doctor and Susan as last survivors.  Behind the scenes stuff is fascinating, but not necessarily definitive.   Doctor Who is a show with a … flexible …  approach to canon, even for the stuff that has aired.   So… it’s open.   You’ve made a good argument, but the matter simply isn’t definitive.

[Anonymous @]

@Burrunjor the above post you wrote was great. I’d look forward to engaging with you on that alone but, a note, anything about actors **spoiler alert**reappearing we keep that on the Spoilers’ page because things like Osgood coming back might not be what others want to know.

Definitely there are different ways of employing metaphors about the Doctor: the sex angle is flirty at the moment and I can see that the Dr and Clara dislike it intently. I would hope that it doesn’t go further and I imagine it won’t. But I can see that it’s not about sex? It’s sex and flirty-ness as power. Someone smarter than me, above, said that. I recall thinking that when a woman like Missy uses sex as an angle it is a play for dominance only: like a man who harasses a woman and does so out of the need to dominate because he really despises her and knows it would be uncomfortable. I don’t think it’s shipping here as the trad views of that include an actual relationship between the two -which both ‘want’ in the ‘ship’ world. I think for Missy it’s a nasty kind of treatment towards the Dr in this past series.

Kindest, puro

[Arbutus @arbutus]

There has been much lunacy between the Delgado Master and Missy. It could be argued that the Master has traveled steadily down the lunacy path ever since The Deadly Assassin (see the conversation over there on the same subject). I’m not sure how I feel about that, and frankly, the Delgado Master was always my favourite, but it’s hard to deny that Missy is another step along that path. I agree with @denvaldron that Missy is not too far removed from the Sim Master.

Personally, I haven’t read Missy’s flirtatious manner as meaning that she wants to shag the Doctor. I think that she is reveling in the sexuality of her current persona, in much the same way as Eleven reveled in the fast-talking, arm-flapping, body-spinning aspects of that persona. The regeneration issue has always complicated discussion of the Doctor’s character, because it can change so much; no reason that this would not be true of the Master as well. I also agree with @purofilion’s analysis of “sex as power”, which is both a true thing and also a well-established trope with female villains!

I know that lots of people assume that the introduction of Missy was done as a trial balloon for a female Doctor. I’m not convinced of this. I suspect that it had more to do with a desire to bring something new to the Master (because really, how long do we want to keep seeing the same old psychotic, Doctor-hating, universe-conquering, lunatic?). Of course, this means that not everyone will be thrilled with the new direction. I’m lukewarm on Missy, myself. But I know that some people really dislike the new direction that Moffat and Capaldi have taken the Doctor, while I love it and have done since PC’s first moments on the show. So everybody is not always going to be happy!

***SPOILER ALERT***

I am actually on record as saying that I don’t care for the killing off of beloved characters simply to make a threat more real; however, having done it, I would have thought it best to stick with it! If the writers can make Osgood’s return convincing and interesting, then great, because I love the character. But her death made an impact, and her return would have to bring some pretty good payoff to counter that. The retconning of emotionally powerful moments is always dangerous (which is why I didn’t enjoy the return of Rose, and don’t especially want to see River Song back).

[Author]

Posts