On The Sofa (8)
8 October 2016 at 09:20 #54164
Just mooching around tonight, came across this — some charming and funny bits, and in general, I come away feeling very cheered about S10.9 October 2016 at 09:05 #54178
Welcome back Craig. *waves*
Missy11 October 2016 at 02:16 #54187winston @winston
Welcome back! It is good to have you here with us again. Whatever you do about Class will be fine with me, I wouldn’t want to spoil it for anyone.11 October 2016 at 09:24 #54188Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip
Thanks for that. I’ve managed to time my holiday to coincide with the first episodes of Class, so minimal information on the forum title sounds great.
I’ll have to play catch-up when I get back.15 October 2016 at 02:12 #54205
Here’s a random bit of speculation.
Blake’s 7 – 2nd season finale, Star One. Blake goes to the edge of the Federation, to find the hidden control center, known as Star One. It’s the nerve center of the Federation, controlling travel, transshipment, all sorts of systems. It’s surrounded by a mine field. Once Blake and Avon get there, however, they discover that Star One has been taken over by Aliens.
The Aliens are never named. They’re called the Andromedans, because the thinking is that they’re from the Andromedan Galaxy, or maybe just from that direction. They’re definitely not human in thought or inclination, and they’re out to wipe us out. We never learn what they call themselves, or anything else about their thoughts or motivations.
Even their appearance is mysterious. In their true form, they’re basically green jellyfish blobs, but are able to take or morph human forms to infiltrate and kill.
Now, there’s a bit of lore. Blake’s 7, was Terry Nation’s brainchild. It was the second of his three big hits: The Daleks, Blake’s 7, and Survivors.
So, there was apparently actually discussion in the BBC as to who or what the aliens that attack Star One was going to be. One of the ideas pitched was the Daleks. A move that would have decisively united the Doctor Who and Blake’s 7 Universes. For whatever reasons, they decided not to go for that. Well enough.
But here’s a thought… What if Chris Boucher, the writer, snuck something else in there….
Take a look at Chris Boucher. Not only was he one of the main writers for Blake’s 7, and the script Editor, but he had before then, also been writing for Doctor Who. He’d written the Face of Evil and Robots of Death and had created the character of Leela. He was a good friend of Robert Holmes, then the script editor of Doctor Who, and actually had three of his scripts accepted under Holmes. It was Holmes that recommended Boucher as script editor for Blake’s 7. And in a return of the favour, Boucher hired Holmes for four scripts for Blake’s 7, including two on the second season, for the Star One arc.
In fact, the Face of Evil and Robots of Death were back to back shows in 1977, followed by the Talons of Weng Chiang, Robert Holmes own story, and Terrance Dicks The Horror of Fang Rock, both of which featured Boucher’s creation, Leela. After that was The Invisible Enemy, and then another Boucher script, Image of the Fendahl. Given that these shows were in the same filming block as his own, he was probably very familiar with them.
So…. familiar with Horror of Fang Rock, solid friends with Bob Holmes….
Why am I dwelling on Horror of Fang Rock, you ask? Interesting question.
Let’s back it up a little. Bob Holmes created a few parts of the Doctor Who universe himself. Notably, he created the Sontarans and the Rutans. Now, the Sontarans we know every well – they had four and a half appearances in the classic series, four legitimate appearances in between the series, and have been a part of the new series under Tennant, Smith and Sarah Jane.
The Sontarans are engaged in a fierce life and death war with their enemies, the Rutans, or Rutan Host. But Holmes never actually wrote the Rutans himself.
Instead, Terrance Dicks wrote the defining Rutan story…. The Horror of Fang Rock. We assume that he got the Rutans right, and either expressed whatever Robert Holmes had in mind, or persuaded him, because Holmes was script editing the show.
So, what about these Rutans? Turns out, they’re green, jellyfish blobs, that can shift into human shape or take over human bodies, are entirely murderous, and have a space fleet with which they’re engaged in a ceaseless war with their enemy. The war goes back and forth, but they’re entirely willing to wipe out Earth – no affection for bystanders.
Hmmm…. amorphous green, shapeshifting jellyfish blobs with murder on their minds and spacefleets in their pockets.
Remind you of anything? The Aliens (race carefully left unnamed) in Star One?
Maybe Boucher pulled a subtle one on us all. Maybe the aliens at Star One were intended to be the Rutans of Doctor Who.
He’s the script editor for Blake’s 7, so he’s got a high degree of creative control and input. He’s writing the script. No one is looking over his shoulder. So what are the odds he accidentally made his Andromedans resemble the Rutans? Is it a complete coincidence?
Was it simply a matter of mechanics – Star One needed to be the flash point of an alien attack. Ergo, there needed to be aliens. That’s not hard.
If there were aliens… they needed to either be functionally human, monsters masquerade as humans, replace humans with simulations/robots, or control humans. One of those had to be the option. Boucher could have gone in all sorts of directions. But he picked a very specific direction – monsters masquerading as humans.
Then he had to pick another specific direction – what were the monsters going to look like? He picked green jellyfish. He could have picked anything. He could have selected some hideous rubber suited thing, or anything, rod puppets, glowy effects. Choosing an amorphous jellyfish green blob wasn’t necessarily even the most opportune choice from a storytelling point of view – better to use something that could growl, lunge, slash, scare, roar, and do all sorts of crazy stuff.
So … no, the Andromedans are not the inevitable product of story mechanics. Boucher had to exercise some creative choices to take them down the path he did.
To be able to discount completely the affinity between Andromedans and Rutans, you have to accept one of two things:
1) Chris Boucher never saw Horror of Fang Rock, never read the scripts, never watched the episodes, never discussed or heard it discussed with Robert Holmes, his good friend, or the writers he was hanging out with. Somehow, he was completely oblivious to and ignorant of it.
2) Chris Boucher completely forgot about the Rutans, the Horror of Fang Rock, all of it. It vanished from his mind. Disappeared completely. Faded into the gray mists. …. In less than two years. Just forgot all about it. One of Bob Holmes great creations, slipped his mind completely. I’ll point out again that Holmes wrote two episodes of that season, whose running arc was the search for Star One… So he would have probably discussed the plot with Holmes. But no… forgot about it.
Given Boucher’s involvement with Doctor Who in the season that the Horror of Fang Rock comes out … he’s writing shows before and after it, and his new character is the co-star in Horror, and he’s a damned good friend and owes a big favour to Bob Holmes…. It seems really unlikely that Chris Boucher would have been ignorant of or oblivious to the or forgotten about them Rutans. He had to know what they were and how they were portrayed. No chance of him being out of that loop.
It may have been a sly joke. Or even some level of overt choice that got quashed ‘ I can see Boucher going ‘We’ll call them Rutans.’ And budget office going ‘If you call them Rutans, we have to pay Bob Holmes a royalty, they’re fine the way they are… just don’t use the name.’
But I think that on some level, it was almost certainly deliberate.
Or maybe Murderous, Green Jellyfish, shapeshifting, aliens piloting around in genocidal warfleets is a common, generic sci fi thing.
What do you think?15 October 2016 at 03:13 #54209Anonymous @
Ah huh. Does it matter? I’m not being flip but what exactly is the issue?
If Boucher did add that in are you suggesting Blake 7 and Who were on the same path? Or Boucher wanted this? Did he want this without having to pay horrendous royalties as is the case with Nation’s daleks?
I don’t know anything about Blake 7, I’m afraid. I have issues enough with Farscape, imho, so I’m not sure of the fantastical element here. 🙂
PuroSolo15 October 2016 at 03:18 #54210
Fucking hell. Writers recycle ideas, while producers and their lawyers understand intellectual property law.
Who’da thunk itzzzzzzzz…
(T’Pol, in Star Tek: Enterprise was going to be called T’Pau (Spock’s mother (grandmother? Can’t remember, don’t care) but then they realised they would have to pay a fuck off big residual to the writer who created the character, so junked the idea)15 October 2016 at 06:11 #54211
“Fucking hell”? Are attempting to offend? Should I take it that way?
Are you insulting lawyers? Is that intended to offend?
I’m not being provocative, I’m just asking. Is this just the way you talk, or is this intended to be nasty?
Did I piss you off?
Look, here’s how I see things. I’m a guy that likes to connect the dots. I look for patterns. I look for correlations. Associations. Correspondences. I look for the things that affiliate one to another, that fit into each other, overtly and covertly. It’s a game, but I figure it’s a harmless game that shouldn’t offend anyone, and that possibly it may allow for insight and creativity.
Doctor Who and Blake’s 7 were contemporary BBC Sci Fi dramas, with substantial overlap or crossovers of writers, directors, even cast members. Colin Baker did an episode of B7. Paul Darrow did an episode of Who. But that was actors acting. There was no direct connection or overlap in which we could say that these two universes were the same place.
Except, and this is my silly theory, that maybe there is a direct connection. Maybe the Andromedans and the Rutans were the same alien race, which would place B7 and its history inside Doctor Who’s history, and might have some specific implications for the Rutans and their war.
There are two ways to test this theory: Inside the text – you look at the characteristics of each and determine if they overlap. Outside the text – you look at the writers and processes and attempt to divine what they knew and didn’t know to establish the possibility. I applied both tests, it passed both tests. I figure, justifiable theory.
I think that Big Finish does something called Kaldor City audios, which also merge B7 and DW. So I’m not the first person to think of merging the universes. I think I just came up with an interesting angle. No harm, no foul.15 October 2016 at 13:03 #54214
See, if only your original post had been that concise instead of hogging a board, for which posts of that length are not well suited, like a fat man in the back seat of a Boeing 737…
You didn’t come up with a theory, you saw the face of Jesus in the smoke and wondered if it was the same face of Jesus as when the same people set a different fire, and … might they even be the same fire?
Writers recycle all the time because a) there are only so many ideas to go around and b) they tend to write about what interests them.
Editors take writers’ output and think a) “Oh God, who am I going to cut this into a coherent story” and b) “Oh shit, who’s got the lawyers phone number – I’ve seen this before”.
FanFic authors don’t understand this and they find it so much easier to steal other people’s ideas, rather than try to come up with their own.15 October 2016 at 17:00 #54221
@Iamnotafishiamafreeman I thank you for your response. You have made yourself very clear and I appreciate that. I understand you perfectly. To the extent that I have intruded upon you, accept my apologies. I will not intrude again. Be well, and go forward with my best wishes.17 October 2016 at 21:37 #54261Rob @rob
Peeps around corner…..
Hello everyone, managed to log back on sneaking through the bot attacks (miniature internet Daleks???)
Hopefully will have more time to peruse and make comments somewhat regularly
Hugs to all of you17 October 2016 at 22:29 #5426226 October 2016 at 07:11 #54397
Some chat from Moffat, for them as hasn’t seen this but are interested:
Clever clogs; sometimes you just want to smack him . . .26 October 2016 at 09:37 #54401SeverusOswald @severusoswald
@dalektor I like lots of episodes in NuWho. I all the Series 9 episodes and all of series 6 in particular.28 October 2016 at 14:15 #54438janetteB @janetteb
@ichabod “That man is clever”, (not sure I am quoting that correctly) but the words echo in my mind when i read your comment and they are so apt. Yes Moffat, like the Doctor, is clever. I really enjoyed his answers. thank you for the link
Today really enjoyed shopping in our local supermarket, which is most unusual. I was not in the happiest of moods due to a poor school report so the all so familiar Dr Who theme tune was just what I needed to cheer me up. Wasn’t really expecting to hear it as I marched down the biscuit isle checking to see if there were any Jammy Dodgers in stock. They haven’t stocked them since the last series aired. I am now convinced that the manager is a Dr Who fan. Jammy dodgers when Dr Who is airing and Dr Who theme music in the music mix, makes grocery shopping almost bearable.
Janette28 October 2016 at 17:59 #54439
@janetteb Ha! I wish we had that kind of thing here (DW music in the supermarket — not so sure about something called “Jammy Dodgers” — sounds like some street hooligan to me).
Poor Moffat — part of his problem is that he so obviously *enjoys* his own cleverness (which many of his detractors simply cannot forgive). When you watch him live, you can see that he’s entertaining himself first and foremost. I suspect that he loves Sherlock Holmes so much because he himself is no stranger to being bored half out of his mind by much of what we think of as “normal life”, as Sherlock is (shooting up the house because he’s got no case to busy his mind; and it’s not even his house). As a kid, he was likely maddeningly obnoxious, early and often.28 October 2016 at 21:44 #54441
Remember when the Doctor held up a cookie pretending it was a button in Victory of the Daleks?
By the way: the assault on cleverness? Unworthy and unseemly. Never apologise for being clever and never allow anyone to be criticised for being clever. That way Brexit lies.29 October 2016 at 06:07 #54448
@pedant Thank you! Now if I ever *do* remember that moment, I’ll know what the cookie was.
As for the assault on cleverness, that’s a good part of what’s driving the candidacy of Drumpf. Brexit for him and his followers is probably the proposed walling off of Mexico (and no doubt Canada too, the Creature from the Orange Lagoon gets in). However, those of us with decent brains are hopeful of a better outcome.29 October 2016 at 13:18 #54463Whisht @whisht
Hi all, I haven’t seen anyone link to it, so thought I would here (apologies if I missed this being mentioned already!).
Basically 50 years ago today was the first time the Doctor regenerated.
Here’s an article explaining stuff:
Oh, and @ichabod a Jammy Dodger is a bit like an Oreo, except that the filling is strawberry jam* not cream, the biscuit parts are not chocolate but closer to shortbread and there’s often a hole (sometimes a heart) in one of the biscuits that allows the jam to ooze out.
hmm….. so not like an Oreo at all.
* and the jam is quite…. plastic-y and sweet. By gawd are those things sweet.
Waves at @juniperfish – long time no see, but glad to see you’re still swimming around these parts
;¬)29 October 2016 at 21:55 #54470Juniperfish @juniperfish
<waves at @whisht in return>
Yes, I haven’t forgotten the Who Forum and all you good folks on here – life has just been busy, and there has been no new Who to get our teeth into!
I’m pleased they’ve launched Class, however. We’ll see how it unfolds.
Thanks for the article link about the 50 years since regeneration 1 – I saw that on the Grauniad earlier and bookmarked it to read. It makes me think of @htpbdet bless him.1 November 2016 at 05:00 #54488
Thank you so much for the video. there is so much to read n this thread that i shall come back later AND watch the video.
Missy1 November 2016 at 05:11 #54491
@missy It’s sometimes pretty hard to catch up around here — but always worth the effort!2 November 2016 at 22:43 #54519CARBr6 @carbr6
I need assistance once again. Can anyone help me. I am trying to find a sound clip of The Doctor saying “Happy Birthday”, preferably Tom Baker, but I’ll take any Doctor, surely one of them at some point in the history of Doctor Who must’ve said Happy Birthday to a companion, or something?
(doesn’t actually have to be from an episode of DW, even just a clip of one of the Doctor actors saying it will do!3 November 2016 at 10:13 #54539
I’ve thought that about Steven too. You only haver to see how he sits on a chair, with a sort of swagger. *grins*
He is quite sure of his own genius and doesn’t mind showing it but I don’t care, the man is brilliant.
Finally saw the video, thank you so much ichi, loved it.
@denvaldron: Although i shall keep out of the ongoing discussion, I did use to watch Blakes’ Seven and enjoyed it.
When I tried watching it again a couple of months ago, I found it badly dated. Did anyone else find that?
@whisht: They used to sell Jammy Dodgers here, but for some reason they are off the shelves.
Missy3 November 2016 at 18:48 #54545
@missy Oh, you’re very welcome! I recall him mentioning somewhere in an interview that he had a bad time at school himself, socially at least — fat kid being bullied (his own kid, the one who did that interview with him, is very round); fat, *clever* kid, all the worse. So maybe there’s a bit of getting his own back and (however subtly and indirectly) crowing about what he’s made of himself, and well-earned, I’d say.4 November 2016 at 09:06 #54555
@ichabod; Oh my goodness yes! Now who has the last laugh.
I was on a site a couple of weeks ago (when some cyber thingy wouldn’t give me access to this forum) and the insults levelled at SM were painful. I’d obviously stumbled on a “We hate Steven Moffat” site. the comments made me very cross indeed. You don’t have to like his style of writing, but he doesn’t deserve to be vilified like that.
Crow all you like Steven, your time has come. *grins*
Missy21 November 2016 at 20:04 #54787
If anyone has difficulty getting their heads round the concept of ‘a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff’, try this for size. It may be that reality can be described mathematically as a jewel-like geometric construct, challenging the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality.
I hasten to acknowledge that it was my brother who brought this to my attention, I doubt if I would have found it for myself and I don’t have the mathematical ability to comprehend it in full, but it does titillate the sense of wonder.22 November 2016 at 09:02 #54791
As much as I am fascinated by/with Physics, I cannot abide Mathematics. Bit of a problem isn’t it.
I tried reading the aricle (thank you for that mudlark) but it was/is all beyond me. I shall try again one morning when I am more awake.
Missy23 November 2016 at 06:07 #54793
@mudlark @missy Too much for me; I can’t get past needing the sum of the interactions to add up to one. Why? Is there an explanation graspable through lay English? The imaginary object, though, is wonderful — it might be timey-wimey, but how can we tell whether it’s also wibbly-wobbly or not?
Nice, though; intriguingly simple-looking, especially given what sure seems to me to be the complexity of matter of the article that follows. Richard Feynman would undoubtedly be hugely amused to be thought of as the inventor of a Rube Goldberg contraption, though — he was a man of sparkly good humor, from what I’ve seen of him on film.23 November 2016 at 16:11 #54795
I can’t get past needing the sum of the interactions to add up to one.
Because 1 is everything – the probabilistic expression that that a thing has (or must) happen.
Easy to grasp with only two outcomes: the election of Trump has moved the probability of a major war in Europe closer to 1, and the probability of no war closer to zero (or further away from 1). The two probabilities add up to 1, because one of them must be true.
Now add more possible outcomes and more dimensions and your spreadsheet off outcomes gets a tad unwieldy…..23 November 2016 at 18:12 #54796
@pedant — Ah. Thank you! If I think of it as every set of probabilities (as percentiles) must add up together to 100%, am I getting it right? It’s the bare-naked “one” that threw me.23 November 2016 at 18:38 #54797
Yep – it’s just that in statistics (so presumably physics) decimals are used rather than percentages.25 November 2016 at 04:28 #54801
No! Not getting it. Really not my area.
Thank you anyway pedant.
Missy30 November 2016 at 08:41 #54818
What joy! We have just found a sweet shop that stocks Jammy Dodgers!
It also stocks many English/British sweets, that my OH and I had forgotten about.
Pontefract Cakes for one.
Though I’d share this with you. *smile*
Missy5 December 2016 at 23:18 #54835
My brother, ever a source of unconsidered trifles, drew this to my attention
Salvador Dalek – The Persistence of … something or other
The image is copyright, so I can’t reproduce it here.
I was assessed for cataract surgery last Wednesday and could have had the first eye done tomorrow on the NHS, but the NHS optometrist suggested that I might like to consider having toric lenses to correct my astigmatism instead of the standard ones. This seems like an excellent idea, but corrective lenses are not available on the NHS so I will have to pay for them myself (at about £420 each, which seems reasonable). The upshot is that I will need further assessment and so will have to wait until the new year to get new eyes and a fresh outlook on the world.
I’m with you wholeheartedly when it comes to Pontefract Cakes, but I have to confess – and I hang my head in shame – I do not like Jammy Dodgers. Ginger Nuts, yes; and Chocolate Digestives, also yes; but otherwise my taste in sweet biscuits * is somewhat rarified (which reminds me, I must check that I have the ingredients for my annual, Christmas batch of Florentines).
Biscuits according to British usage, not to be confused with American biscuits.6 December 2016 at 01:39 #54836
Well, blow me down! I too am booked for cataract surgery – if the hospital ever rings to infom me what time I should make an appearance – tomorrow! Both eyes need attention, so the other eye will be attended to on the 1st. February.
Small world – innit.
As to Jammie Dodgers, I like them but wouldn’t crawl across broken glass to get to them. I’m giving them to a friend who is also a Whovian – well, her son is the real fan – for Christmas. Ginger Nuts I can live without, but chocolate digestives we agree upon. *grin*
I once heard an American describe “biscuits” American style, as a mixture of self raising flour, fried, put on the plate with gravy poured over them? Sounds boring to me. If they don’t snap, they aren’t biscuits.
Missy6 December 2016 at 03:07 #54837Anonymous @
I can confirm as an American that biscuits here are like bread, but fluffier than a normal loaf of bread, and they are small and round. They are served with breakfast, lunch or dinner, and if they are fresh, warm, just out of the oven, I usually have one with melted butter in the middle. Sometimes they also have melted cheese on top.
Things that “snap” or round chewy sweets for dessert are called cookies instead of biscuits. Like chocolate chip cookies, sugar cookies, oreo cookies, etc.6 December 2016 at 22:35 #54838
Good wishes for the cataract surgery. My two younger brothers, both of whom have undergone the procedure, say that it is well worth it. According to them there is a bit of discomfort for a day or two, but the results are spectacular, especially as one tends not to notice how much one’s vision has deteriorated – apparently the brain adjusts to some extent.
@TheConsultingDoctor Included in my culinary library there is an American cookbook which contains several recipes for biscuits. Those which contain butter are pretty much the same as unsweetened scones, and the recipe for those with just flour, raising agent and buttermilk is pretty much the same as for soda bread, although soda bread usually comes in the form of round loaves or triangular farls.
We have cookies here too, but the term is used only for the softer, chewy type which I don’t remember ever seeing when I was young, so I guess that they are a relatively recent import from America 🙂7 December 2016 at 02:35 #54839blenkinsopthebrave @blenkinsopthebrave
I was relating your story of toric lenses to Mrs Blenkinsop, as she has a type of astigmatism as well, but she reminded me that her version of it is apparently so peculiar that the toric lenses she used to wear became part of the problem. On the other hand, she looks pretty fabulous in glasses.
I managed to avoid glasses up until about the age of 55, and even now, after 10 years, while the prescription changes, I still wear the same rimless frames, originally purchased because of my unease at wearing glasses. I am always reminded of the scene in “Deadwood” (one of my favourite TV shows) where the irascible Al Swearegan, who thinks he is the toughest guy in town, is trying to read a document with the aid of a huge magnifying glass, and when someone comes into the room and sees him, he growls: “Yes, it’s come to this”.
I hope everything works out well, and the new year promises a crystal clarity.7 December 2016 at 18:24 #54843
Thanks. I suppose it may yet turn out that my eyes are not suitable for toric implants, although the optometrist seemed to think me a suitable subject. I suppose that is why I will need further assessment by the ophthalmic specialist, but I’m hoping for the best.
I have needed glasses for distance since the age of twenty, although I have only ever worn them when absolutely necessary. It is only in the last five or six years that I have needed prescription glasses for reading and computer work, but it has got to the stage where I can no longer manage without those, and the cataracts are probably to blame in part for that.
Despite my reluctance to be seen in them – and why I should persist in such vanity at my age I don’t know – my current varifocals are by far the most wearable I have ever had; rimless, with light weight lenses and titanium frames so that I am scarcely aware of them, and quite stylish in appearance 😎7 December 2016 at 23:45 #54845nerys @nerys
@missy Best wishes on the cataract surgery. I’ve had both eyes done. My surgeon was perplexed at how quickly mine developed. Cataracts are supposed to be slow growers, but mine became a problem within a year, after my previous year’s eye exam showed no cataracts. As my husband drove me to the hospital for my first surgery, I covered my “good” right eye, just to see how bad the eyesight in my left (the one being operated on) was. A red car was approaching in the opposite lane. With my right eye covered, I couldn’t see it. So I got the surgery not a moment too soon. My surgeon was going to hold off on the right eye, but then, at my insistence, he had that eye checked, and it had already deteriorated noticeably from my appointment just a few months earlier. As @mudlark says, the post-cataract contrast in vision is startling. Colours are so much more vivid. The world is suddenly in Technicolor!8 December 2016 at 04:17 #54847
Thank you muchly. The deed is done, and although things are still slightly ‘off’ colours are astonshing!
I have to wear dark glasses for at least a week, a patch in bed at night (?) and three lots of drops four times a day .
Print is still blurred and I mustn’t bend over or do anything strenuous.
I watched DW last night (how unusual) and Clara’a lipstick and all the other colours were too vivid – but clearer.
Other eye has its turn in February.
Thank you too. The same thing happened to me”Now you don’t see them, now you do!”
The strange thing is that i didn’t need glasses if I was reading outside or in a good light.
Missy8 December 2016 at 22:28 #54854
Glad to hear that things went well. I am not conscious that the cataracts have affected my colour perception, but I suspect that once I have had the implants I may have to adjust the colour balance on my TV 🙂
In my case, also, the cataracts seem to have developed very quickly. Last year when I had my annual eye check-up I was told for the first time that there were signs of them developing, and fourteen months later, in October. they had already reached the stage where the optometrist judged they needed fixing. Apparently it is still just about legal for me to drive, but I wouldn’t dare do so at night, and even in full daylight I have difficulty reading road signs until I am almost abreast of them.11 December 2016 at 02:25 #54863nerys @nerys
@missy Post-surgery, I really don’t need my glasses for anything except reading text close-up. So I ended up with an expensive pair of reading glasses. My eyesight is the exact opposite of what it was before surgery. I was nearsighted (couldn’t clearly see things far away) before, and now I’m farsighted (can’t clearly see things close up).
@mudlark You’re at the stage I was at prior to my surgery. I was very cautious about where/when I drove, and I tried to avoid driving at night, especially because of the extreme glare from headlights and even streetlamps. My night vision still isn’t what it should be, but that may be the result of approaching 60 more than anything else.13 December 2016 at 15:04 #54866MissRori @missrori
Hey everybody! Finally managed to get back in here. I’ve been busy the past few weeks — and it’s not always easy to log into these forums!
Best wishes with the surgery @missy.
I attended the Chicago TARDIS convention over Thanksgiving weekend. Compared to the general-interest Wizard World Chicago, this was much more rewarding when it came to Who-related stuff. Alas, I learned too late that the video room was actually running the first few Class episodes in the late-night slots. I was busy with, among other things, the lovely reception for Michelle Gomez, who is also lovely.
There weren’t many discussion panels specific to the latest seasons this year, because Series 9 was just about to wrap up when last year’s convention (which I didn’t attend) was held and everybody had a chance to chew things over then, though there was a panel on what we’re hoping to see with Bill, and a retrospective on Clara’s time on the show. A lot of the panels were retrospectives — the First Doctor and Second Doctor eras each warranted a panel, as did the Cybermen (50th anniversary), K-9 (40th), and “The Trial of a Time Lord” (30th) — or discussed topics that apply to multiple eras of the show (companions returning after dramatic departures in the contemporary series; whether the Doctor is better with a single companion at a time or a “Team TARDIS”, etc.).
The special guest list definitely leaned towards the classic series after multiple new series performers (plus Paul McGann) headed up the 2015 convention. All of the companions represented came from the Fourth Doctor’s era or earlier, and Gomez was the only new series performer to attend. Everybody seemed happy to be there, both special guests and us common rabble.
One thing that was rather nice was that all eras of the show were given love, not just Ten and Eleven’s, which seems the case at general-interest sci-fi/fantasy conventions. Where I was the only person who dressed as (a genderbent) Twelve for Wizard World Chicago, there were several Twelve cosplayers here. For that matter, all of the Doctors bar One and War had at least one attendee dressed up as them! There were also a lot of great companion and villain cosplays (Missy was the most popular female character represented, though Clara and Osgood clearly have lots of fans too).14 December 2016 at 01:52 #54868
@nerys. My eye is still sore, but the soreness goes away after a while, I still wear dark glasses everywhere – even indoors- or both eyes become very tired.
@missrori: Thank you for that. What fun, although I’m surprised that PC and neither of the writers were there too?Forgive me if I seem to shorten sentences, but it’s a strain looking through dark glasses at the text.
I didn’t care for Paul McGann as the Doctor, not his fault I’m sure, just a matter of taste. Missy is wonderful. I’ve seen her in other interviews – panels – and she is very funny.
Missy14 December 2016 at 02:10 #54870
Patience was never my strong point, but are any of you finding it hard to wait for the Christmas Special? Or is it just me?
Missy14 December 2016 at 07:21 #54871
@missy are any of you finding it hard to wait for the Christmas Special? Or is it just me?
It’s not just you. I am gnashing my teeth to gnubbins! Come ON, already — !14 December 2016 at 07:43 #54872Kharis @kharis
Have you all seen this? Madame Koverian reading a bedtime Christmas story:
It’s adorable, my kids and I just loved it. I forgot how nice it is to sit around and listen to a fireside Christmas story together. The story and reader were excellent. (:15 December 2016 at 13:40 #54876MissRori @missrori
Haven’t seen the clip, but I’ve read the story it features. The Twelve Doctors of Christmas book is a truly exceptional short story collection — there seem to have been quite a few of those lately (Time Lord Fairy Tales, the Ashildr and River Song anthologies, The American Adventures…) But this one is the best I’ve read of late. They had some of the top expanded universe writers work on this, and it shows; several stories cross over characters from the classic and contemporary series in creative ways. It’s aimed at kids, but it has a lot to offer adults.
The topic ‘On The Sofa (8)’ is closed to new replies.