25 July 2017 at 18:14 #6142525 July 2017 at 18:44 #61426
Moff could write and show that, but I rather hope he doesnt. If he wants to show the first Doctor regeneration then in my opinion he should use the original footage (adding some colour if he must).
Except that aside from the seconds of the regeneration itself, none of that footage exists any longer. I wouldn’t blame Moffat if he wanted to rectify the issue of at least having all the regenerations of the Doctor existing in some form or another. Now, knowing that SM is a massive BG fan and generally incredibly respectful of the show as a whole I don’t see him doing anything like that and that we won’t see the Hartnell regeneration at all. But personally I do kind of want to see it ‘done properly’. I think I’m more open to a bit of BG retconning than even SM is. It’s 50 years ago, after all, and as long as continuity isn’t directly contravened I don’t have a massive problem with a bit of tweaking to make a virtue of what was a necessity back in the day.
One thing no one seems to have commented on regarding the trailer is the apparent Polly footage with Capaldi Doctor. I’ll be interested to see what they do, but it seems plausible that the footage will alter the end of The Tenth Planet and the beginning of Power of the Daleks regeneration scenes, which continue on the theme is this really the Doctor well into that story. I think that would be a real shame.
As @genek1953 says, the Polly footage seems to be with Bradley’s 1st Doctor rather than the 12th, although that doesn’t mean they won’t meet during the course of the episode, of course. I don’t see that it will alter the end of TP or start of PotD. If anything (as pointed out by a commentator over at Radio Times) that scene might help clear up an age-old Who continuity question — why Polly was far more accepting that Troughton was the Doctor than Ben was.25 July 2017 at 20:09 #61431
From the reconstructions I’ve seen, they never filmed shots showing him fall to the floor from the clips of him standing at Tardis console (while the controls operate themselves, while the door doesnt open). I wouldnt be bothered if they reshot that with DB or even morphed DB back to WH for the regen itself as they’ve did in the promo. I see that as being different to refilming the regen itself with Bradley and Shearsmth (or someone else) standing in for PT.
If the Polly footage is with DB in the Tardis, then where can it fit in to the story. Ben and Polly are locked outside, the door opens and they both go to the Doctor who’s lying on the floor. The regen happens with both of them watching him change. Reshooting it so we can see the orange jets from his arms so it doesnt confuse the current general audience would be a pretty poor reason.25 July 2017 at 20:26 #61432
If anything (as pointed out by a commentator over at Radio Times) that scene might help clear up an age-old Who continuity question — why Polly was far more accepting that Troughton was the Doctor than Ben was.
POLLY: It is the Doctor. I know it is. I think.
Reshooting it so we can see the orange jets from his arms so it doesnt confuse the current general audience would be a pretty poor reason.
Not sure I agree but I do understand your not wanting the original regen’ to be ‘sullied’…25 July 2017 at 20:26 #61433
I’m not sure the existing regeneration footage is of good enough quality to do anything but a reshoot with. As far as I recall, it’s second generation stuff and only exists because of being incorporated into a Blue Peter episode.
As to the Polly clip, looking at the trailer (yet) again, it’s pretty clearly not inside the TARDIS but in the control room for the South Pole base from The Tenth Planet — and a pretty impressive reconstruction it is too, so that suggests either a reconstruction of a scene from episodes 1-3 or a previously unseen scene. Either way, that’s pretty easy to account for narratively.25 July 2017 at 20:31 #6143425 July 2017 at 20:45 #61435
The character of Dyson is also in that scene.
I love how the Cybermen sound more like Zippy when they get angry! (I know – They have no emotions)25 July 2017 at 20:51 #61436
personally I like the Cyberman asking for names. (Don’t tell him, Pike!) Plus I’ve always felt that the Cybermen are misunderstood good guys here. They’re trying to save people in their own cack-handed, bureaucratic way.25 July 2017 at 21:43 #61437
Having rewatched, it does seem to be the South Pole Base set. Refilming a small part of an old episode around the regeneration is one thing, but adding new scenes into someone else’s writing shows nothing but Moff’s hubris.25 July 2017 at 21:56 #61439
Refilming a small part of an old episode around the regeneration is one thing, but adding new scenes into someone else’s writing shows nothing but Moff’s hubris.
Don’t know about that. Both Branagh and Olivier took it upon themselves to insert scenes and modify others when they filmed Shakespeare. Not sure this would be much different. But as I said, SM has always shown a real care and consideration for the show’s history and continuity so I think it’s the last thing he would think of doing, or at least not without a lot of care and respect.
Personally I don’t see why not. If it’s possibly to use 50-year-old source material and make it fresh and relevant again, I think that can only be a good thing. It’d only be hubris to my mind if he was also somehow inserting it into the original Tenth Planet as well in some kind of weird Lucas-ey way.25 July 2017 at 22:07 #61440
Of course, I’ll wait and see. I dont think writing new scenes into an existing story makes it fresh or relevant (apart from disrespecting someone else’s writing and acting). I’m happy to disagree though 🙂 . I dont agree with what Lucas did (it served no purpose and weaken Han Solo’s character), but at least Lucas created and wrote it in the first place.
I know there’s a long history of rewriting, reordering and editing Shakespeare. I found it interesting the Writer/directors/actors can seek to improve the work of our most important playwrights, but then that is part of the necessary ego, which gets you into that sort of place in the first instance.25 July 2017 at 22:34 #61441
It’s a story about regeneration & this story is when the 1st Dr regenerated. The scene dialogue will no doubt be the same and then we’ll be be whisked off to the adventure which we didn’t see in 1966. After that I expect we’ll be whisked off back to ‘The Tenth Planet’ for the (faithful-ish) regeneration…
It’s reverence to Dr Who but it’s also ‘form follows function’…25 July 2017 at 22:44 #61442
We frequently have two or three versions of Shakespeare’s plays, and we also know that scenes were reordered, omitted or added by Shakespeare at different times. Given that, shifting scenes around is considered perfectly okay – why get antsy when we’re often not sure whether the Folio or the Quarto order is the ‘right’ one? Or maybe they’re both right.
Film’s a different medium to stage; it’s very rare that a play can transfer to screen without some rewriting.
With regard to the Tenth Planet, they might be recreating missing scenes, or they might be working in-between the original scenes. Either is perfectly fine – I’d never say, for example, that Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is disrespectful to Shakespeare just because it chooses to tell its story in scenes that take place in-between the original scenes from Hamlet.
Mind you, it might be good to have a rewatch/discussion of Tenth Planet.25 July 2017 at 23:07 #61444
If not a faithful as possible first regeneration, then maybe Moffster will make 1 turn into 13 & 12 turn into 2…!25 July 2017 at 23:37 #61445
Love it. Maybe we’ll see 1 regenerate into someone else entirely and Ben was right and we’ve been watching the exploits of an impostor for the past 50 years.
But with regards to ‘new’ scenes of The Tenth Planet — if they do happen, they’ll be totally faithful, I reckon and with no word changes. (Though part of me would be amused if SM did insert the First Doc saying ‘wibbley-wobbley, timey-wimey’ just for the sheer outrage value.) No, I think the best analogy will be it’ll be like the Tribbles episode of DS9. A nice adjunct that doesn’t in any way affect the original.
But I have to say I do like the idea of seeing some Tenth Planet action. For me that Hartnell scene is the most compelling of the trailer and I find it fascinating the way that Bradley has recreated those lines while not just copying them. There’s some subtle inflections of his own take on the character there. I’m really looking forward to seeing more of that.
And I do think Pip’s idea of a rewatch of the Tenth Planet before Christmas might be good. Not only to refresh our memories in case it’s a significant part of the spesh, but also to see how it segues into WEAT.26 July 2017 at 00:47 #61446blenkinsopthebrave @blenkinsopthebrave
@wolfweed, @jimthefish — love the idea of the 1st rengerating into the 13th! They couldn’t come more timely-wimey than that. And that really would be a form of SM hubris–particularly if 12 gave his regeneration energy to 1, and then died. It would mean SM would have literally ended Doctor Who the show as we know it and Chibnall would be re-booting the show…from the beginning! Talk about a time paradox.
But it won’t happen. And so I think we are safe from Moffat hubris, @nick. I would think better examples of hubris were actually Lucas when he made Han shoot first. The hubris was thinking that the story was his “property” to do with what he wanted. Another example would be Ridley Scott when he changed the 20 foot tall alien welded to the pilot’s chair in the alien spaceship in “Alien” into an 8 foot tall humanoid in a spacesuit in “Prometheus”, completely changing the context of the original story and diminishing the epic grandeur and wonder of the original, all because he regarded it as “his” property.
Moffat is too much of a fan to regard the show as his property to do with what he will.
Totally agree with @bluesqueakpip that we should have a rewatch of “The Tenth Planet” before Christmas.26 July 2017 at 02:07 #6144726 July 2017 at 12:02 #61448
I dont call the ending of the Impossible Girl (should be woman of course) “arc” sensitive – he rewrote every story for no good reason at all, other than to create a companion who is more important to the series than all of the Doctor’s. Ego anyone ?
I assume the rumoured Clara bit is for her to appear as a claricle to open the Doctor’s Tardis door so that Ben & Polly can watch the original regeneration and not get left behind or to direct him towards D14 on his trip across the ice ?
The idea that there is any need to add a scene so that Polly is more attuned to the idea of regeneration than Ben – not withstanding that they both watched it happen – (if that is what he has done) would be high level fanwankery. Rewriting someone else’s story because some fans think the end doesn’t quite make sense ? In 50 years of the TV show I cant think of any other show runner or writer that has done that.26 July 2017 at 12:20 #61449
We’ll have to wait and see, but the only easy places to add a new adventure (and Doctor only ones at that) are either in episode 3, when he passed out or right at the end after leaving the Cybership, as he was a few minutes ahead of Ben & Polly.
I don’t think anyone can have a problem with fitting another adventure into either of those gaps – none allow Ben & Polly into the story though. However, the additional base scene with Polly in the trailer cant be a reshoot of the original episode. Ben and Polly are together in the control room (or elsewhere) until Ben leaves leaves to go to the missile room. The Doctor cant go off on his own during the bulk of episode 4.
One other thing the additional scene with Polly (apart from the one I mentioned in the post above) suggest to me at least, that Moff is rewriting the original regeneration to fit into and mirror his concept for the D14 regeneration (“I dont want to go” and suppressing the start of the regeneration) as well as in special effect terms. That’s quite a big rewrite in fact.
The scenes where the Doctor meets D14 whilst very nicely done, the Doctor is no where near as frail as he was at the end of the Tenth Planet (he cant be of course if your going to write a new story into the interval).26 July 2017 at 12:31 #61450
Thanks. I didnt realise there was more than one version of some (all ?) of the plays. My impression was that most (many ?) were found in the manuscript pulled together some years after he died. I never got that impression from any of the BBC making of documentaries I’ve watched over the years (the last one I remember was Tennant in Hamlet, although there may have been one on Macbeth more recently. That was also the only play of his we studied at school).
My impression had always been that it was a choice made by the Director/lead actor for dramatic reasons or to remove scenes that didn’t add anything or make sense. Mind you, I don’t remember any of that being explained very well.
On the Tenth Planet, we’ll have to wait and see what Moff is actually doing to that story, before we can discuss whether its appropriate or not. From the limited information available, it seems more like a major rewrite of the regeneration part of the original story. If so, then that’s quite a lot different than adding a new story or something like Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.26 July 2017 at 12:45 #61451
That’s a bit harsh. Rather than a moment of Ego, I’d argue that the culmination of the Impossible Girl arc (I think I’d have to go with ‘girl’, ‘woman’ sounds a bit Theresa May for my liking) is the pinnacle of SM’s achievements on the show. And he did it for a very good reason, I think. To free future showrunners from the burden of 50 years of canon without erasing that canon in the process. In future, if CC or those that come after him decide to bring back, say, the Sea Devils and want to do it in a particular way, then he’ll no longer have the obsessives (who? us?) on his case ‘that can’t happen because blah-de-blah-de-blah’. In future, they’ll have access to the canon without being constricted by it and that to my mind is the greatest gift any writer could have given to the show in its 50th year. It also shows more respect for the show than say Terrance Dicks who on more than one occasion said that he and Holmes didn’t really give a stuff what had come before and would pick and choose from continuity for what they needed to make the current story work.
The idea that there is any need to add a scene so that Polly is more attuned to the idea of regeneration than Ben – not withstanding that they both watched it happen – (if that is what he has done) would be high level fanwankery
Well, it’s not strictly necessary, no but at the same time another of SM’s mission statements seems to have been to tidy up what contradictions in continuity that he can, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he wanted to do this one too. And, yes, while both Ben and Polly both see the regeneration, it takes Ben a lot longer to accept it. If there’s an inserted scene where she gets prior clues to what’s happening to the Doc then that makes more sense.
Rewriting someone else’s story because some fans think the end doesn’t quite make sense ?
I don’t think he is doing that though. He’s writing a story called Twice Upon A Time that might (but quite possibly might not) include scenes that overlap with another one called The Tenth Planet. It’s not like he’s rewriting TTP and presenting us with that at Christmas.26 July 2017 at 13:06 #61452Anonymous @
Yes, I wonder about that too. I think that the early stories can easily be re-used by Moffat who has given us a lot of the stories and background since 2009 and even before that. So thinking it’s “fanwankery” might be a tad harsh 😉
He’s the showrunner and creator and so inserting new ‘events’ into the tale is probably appropriate. I know a lot of people on the interwebs didn’t like Clara’s impossible girl arc and yet I liked it. SOmeone once said that disliking that particular arc “stank of ageism and sexism” -ageism because it (the arc) was still being tied up with Capaldi but also there were people who, even though maybe they admitted Clara got better stories with PC, weren’t happy with Clara in any case. I thought her stories were rich and interesting.
One of the web guys had 5 things he hated about the Moffat arc with one being Clara in general but particularly her surviving the Raven and flying around with Ashildr in a Diner from Space -I don’t think this dude “got the funny” in all of that!
I think Moffat will need an enormous rest just to relax from all the fan-hatred which was once fan adoration and then quickly turned to tears! As it often does. Just on the Christmas special -he’s highlighting the ‘not so’ serious side of things and clearly saying this is a ‘tale of fiction, a fairy tale’ by calling it “Twice Upon a Time” .
Mum was adding that the scansion of An Adventure in Space and Time fits perfectly with the words: Twice Upon a Time” so there’s that. It’s like a 360 degree back to the beginning leaving Chibnall with anything he wants to add to and twist a bit.
After over 50 years adding things is probably fair as long it’s kind to the show. In the end there’ll be people who won’t always be happy? I know Peter Davison said he didn’t want a female doctor saying there’s one less role model for boys when Colin Baker (?) said “sorry Peter I disagree with you”. I may have said all that already!
Thane.26 July 2017 at 14:19 #61459
Yes, eighteen of the less popular plays are only found in the First Folio and one (Pericles) only turned up in the Second Folio.
The rest have Quarto versions and Folio versions. Generally, the Folio version is considered the ‘best’, and most official. The Quarto (s) are often considered to be cobbled together by the actors, from memory, maybe because they’ve lost the prompt copy and needed a script. Some (Bad Quartos) are very bad indeed; others allow us to correct Folio mistakes.
What you get in a modern printed edition is generally based mainly on the Folio, but with corrections and amendments from the Quarto – and directors can and do justify alterations based around the argument that what the actors remembered as being performed seems to be different from the final script.
Anyway, comparing it to the Tenth Planet. What we’ve got is three episodes of video, plus the fourth episode in audio. The third episode was hastily rewritten, because William Hartnell was too ill to film it, and the fourth episode exists as either an animation, or as production stills over audio.
There is also an odd moment in the fourth episode where the Hartnell Doctor wanders off by himself, then comes back and regenerates in the TARDIS.
So our present Head Writer has got quite a lot of options. Myself, I think the most likely one is that he’ll freeze time (or extract the Hartnell/Bradley Doctor) during that moment of wandering off by himself. He could, however, legitimately argue that the events of the third episode that we saw on screen were re-written for an in-story reason, and redo the scenes as originally scripted – then come up with an in-story reason for the change. Time is being rewritten, etc.
He can also legitimately re-stage the events of the fourth episode because it’s lost, anyway.
Finally, he can do what I’d love to see done; treat early Who as scripts, not holy relics, and permit David Bradley and the actors playing Ben and Polly to interpret them within the established characterisations. Judging by the subtle differences in the trailer scene, that’s what’s happening- this is going to be David Bradley’s First Doctor, just as you get David Tennant’s Hamlet or David Suchet’s Poirot. Each of the Doctors becomes a role, not the personal possession of the actor who originally created it.26 July 2017 at 14:20 #61460
is the pinnacle of SM’s achievements on the show. And he did it for a very good reason, I think. To free future showrunners from the burden of 50 years of canon without erasing that canon in the process
Jim – Finally something we disagree on ! For me, its the lowest point, the only lower thing I can think of is Colin Baker Doctor’s trying to strangle Peri and that’s just the Impossible Girl concept. I don’t understand why or how you think it made anything different. Its all still there. The Twin Dilemma is still one of the worst ever stories, there are still two different versions of Atlantis, each with different endings (neither of which was a volcanic explosion). Canon is only a burden if you want to make it one. and the only people who really care are a handful of uber-fans. If needed to justify it, the Time War is a broad enough concept to explain virtually anything. In Pertwee’s Stories the Nestene’s were simple colonists . Under RTD they became refugees. The only thing I can easy see that this arc did, was give any show runner/writer free reign to rewrite any existing story the way they want to. Is that not fankwank at its simplest ?
It also shows more respect for the show than say Terrance Dicks who on more than one occasion said that he and Holmes didn’t really give a stuff what had come before and would pick and choose from continuity for what they needed to make the current story work.
Writing today, it would be hard to disagree with this. Back in 1970, with virtually no repeats, no novelisations, no programme guides, not so much. That said, the freedom to use characters from previous stories in a different setting is one of the things that makes Who so long lived. If you watch/read all of the Cybermen stories from Tenth Planet onwards (or the Silurians/Sea Devils, Daleks) there is virtually no continuity and we know have at least 3 or 4 different origins (as Moff rightly pointed at a few weeks ago). The lack of respect for past stories actually held true until JNT took over and super-fans like Ian Levine stated to have an input. Has “canon” ever been a handicap to a writer in Who.
Of course we can and should disagree with each other and each and every show runner, writer and actor if we so choose. Disagree doesn’t give anyone a justification for any form of abuse, although it does seem a few (?) noisy people using the internet don’t seem to understand that.
Of course, being a show runner or writer, your opinion counts more than the entire sum of fandom. That’s the way it should be. Whilst RTD and Moff are both fans, the stories they have written, the arc’s created reflect their individual preferences/interests, which impact just as much on their non-Who work. Robert Holmes did exactly the same. I don’t think many of us, would want to see Who being written for fans and fan sensibilities (I’m not even convinced that JNT went that far – his continuity references in Attack of the Cybermen – re 1986 Invasion/Tenth Planet mash up is not really any different to Moff in intend, although JNT is roundly criticised).
However, if you are a fan show runner, when you do choose to “fix”/change past stories, you do have a higher duty of care, if you like, and must expect at least a degree of criticism if the changes you make are significant. Only a few might complain when Moff rewrote RTD’s original ending to the TimeWar. Adding new scenes, apparently in the middle of an existing story and changing the nature of the original regeneration (as seems likely at this point) is not a small thing to do to someone else’s original work.
I expect the changes Moff makes to the Tenth Planet and the original regeneration, will work and enhance the Twice upon Time story that he wants to tell. Will it simultaneously enhance the original Tenth Planet Story. With the changes Moff (might) make the additional scenes/ending needs to be retroactively added to the existing Tenth Planet story, if we are to see it in the entirety of Moff’s conception. Perhaps it will. But it will not be and never can be the original story with all its faults and problems and triumphs anymore.
Either way, I will probably enjoy watching it (just as I did Hell Bound).26 July 2017 at 14:32 #61461
Finally, he can do what I’d love to see done; treat early Who as scripts, not holy relics, and permit David Bradley and the actors playing Ben and Polly to interpret them within the established characterisations. Judging by the subtle differences in the trailer scene, that’s what’s happening- this is going to be David Bradley’s First Doctor, just as you get David Tennant’s Hamlet or David Suchet’s Poirot. Each of the Doctor’s becomes a role, not the personal possession of the actor who originally created it.
I don’t have any issue with David Bradley’s first Doctor having new adventures with recast Ben & Polly alongside Capaldi or on their own. The Missing episodes book lines do exactly that. If it didn’t devalue the main series, I wouldn’t have a problem with reshooting/rewriting original stories as well as new stories in a Missing Stories line of TV adventures. I would love to see some of the classic stories redone with current TV technology and style and interpreted by different actors. Your right, this is what the Theatre has been doing forever – why shouldn’t TV (reboots/relaunches do something quite different).
However, nothing I’ve seen so far, suggests that Moff is doing anything like that.26 July 2017 at 18:58 #61463
However, nothing I’ve seen so far, suggests that Moff is doing anything like that.
I accept that you don’t think the Tenth Planet needs ‘fixing’; it’s just that I’d disagree.
Episode 4 of The Tenth Planet has a mysterious bit where the Doctor wanders off by himself muttering that he must get back to the TARDIS, leaving Ben and Polly behind. They then arrive at the TARDIS, and have to bang on the door to be let in. Inside the TARDIS, an invisible force is moving the TARDIS controls and the Doctor is struggling to get to that door. Once he manages it he collapses.
As I understand it, we never find out what the force was, why the Doctor rushes off by himself seemingly abandoning his Companions out-of-time, and why he then had to struggle to let Ben and Polly in to the TARDIS. We’re left to assume that it may have been ‘weird regeneration stuff’, but I don’t think it was ever actually explained. Maybe the writers were just trying to make this brand-new ‘regeneration’ idea seem spooky, alien and mysterious.
But to me, that screams that there is indeed a massive black hole of unresolved plot-gap in Episode 4, concerned with the unresolved strange behaviour of both the Doctor and the TARDIS. Which can easily be resolved by another writer – in a later story.26 July 2017 at 19:31 #61464
The ’emotions’ scene is in episode 2, 16 minutes in… Ben indeed crashes into the room halfway through.
This could just be a short flashback of the 1st Dr’s to explain which story in his timestream he’s come from…
The Dr is taken to the cabin at the start of ep 3 (because Hartnell was ill) until nearly the end of the ep.
So it is a possibility he could have an adventure after that & before ep 4 where he returns to the base.
I think that said return to base will be the Polly scene seen in the trailer.
POLLY: What’s happened to you, Doctor?
DOCTOR: Oh, I’m not sure, my dear. Comes from an outside influence. Unless this old body of mine is wearing a bit thin.
(What is that ‘Outside influence’, I wonder…?)
But I think that there’s a very good chance that the TUAT adventure will take place when the Doctor is in the TARDIS with the levers and the weirdness, (and that the ‘wearing a bit thin’ scene is also a short flashback)…
I quite like the idea of getting all of episode 4 as a bonus within the story, though!
Will we get any Bill fluffs from David Bradley I wonder? (Davie Fluffs?)
There is a Ben fluff:
BEN: We save their grotty plonet Mandos, and for what?26 July 2017 at 19:52 #61465
(Or TUAT story could occur between the Cybership & the TARDIS [when we see it at the end of ep] as has been said…)
(& by Base I mean ‘Tracking Station’)26 July 2017 at 20:09 #61467
I have already stated that a new story can easily be added into the Tenth Planet during the episode 3 or in the gap when the Doctor leaves the cyber-ship before Ben & Polly. I agree that the final scenes before the regeneration were a bit weird based on later stories. The Tardis is (or at least was) telepathic. I can just as suggest that during the moments of weirdness, The Doctor is linking up with 13 former generations to save Gallifrey from the 50th anniversary story. Of course, if Moff wants to write something new into that portion, which explains what was going on there and tie that into the 2017 Christmas story, then why not. I’d love to watch it.
So far as I can see that the new story would be Ben & Polly free missing episode. We’ve had a similar story in the past (Face of Evil) and a large number of books and audio stories that do something similar. I have no problem if Moff did this now (or Chibnall did a new missing episode with Matt, Chris, david or Peter in the future).
However, writing new scenes with appear to imply the “stop/start” regeneration for the original Doctor, a la Capaldi, by inserting new scenes in the middle of an existing story is going beyond that. If Moff wants to add an outside force reason why Capaldi doesnt want to regenerate, that’s fine (if not apparently consistent with Series 10). Applying that same force to an existing regeneration is a not an insertion, its a rewrite with the specific aim of changing an existing story.
How can we watch the (admittedly incomplete apart from audio and scripts) Tenth Planet without adding Moff’s new scenes and the probable change in the way the regeneration will happen ?
Of course this is all personal choice on Moff’s part and each of ours in terms of how we react to it. That doesn’t mean can’t also be egotistical and entitled on his part. Which other Who show runner has fixed someone else’s story for them to this extent ?26 July 2017 at 21:43 #61469ichabod @ichabod
@thane15 SOmeone once said that disliking that particular arc “stank of ageism and sexism” -ageism because it (the arc) was still being tied up with Capaldi but also there were people who, even though maybe they admitted Clara got better stories with PC, weren’t happy with Clara in any case. I thought her stories were rich and interesting.
Funny thing about that “stink of ageism and sexism” is that *liking*the “Impossible Girl” arc can also be seen as very sexist– since “Impossible” Clara is a “Mary Sue” character if ever there was one, so loving her IG perfection and sacrifice is loving a hoary old sexist stereotype closely related to the Victorian “Angel of the Hearth” notion of a “good” woman’s role. As for ageism — that’s Clara’s own problem, once she turns into a “real” young woman who wants her Chin-boy back, and that’s part of what makes her more real than IG in the first place, for me.26 July 2017 at 23:32 #61470
“Impossible” Clara is a “Mary Sue” character if ever there was one
Actually, I’d argue that she’s an allegorical character, or maybe an avatar – which is suggested by the dates of her life on her introduction all corresponding to important dates in the history of Doctor Who, the programme. The whole point with S7 Clara is that we were supposed to wonder why she was always exactly what the Doctor ordered… made explicit in the She Said He Said short. No, she wasn’t a ‘real girl’ – but from the very start it was made explicit that she was something very odd indeed. If she’s a Mary Sue, she’s one with a great big arrow pointing at her Mary Sueness.
But the Clara half of S7 used quite a lot of allegorical references to the history of Doctor Who – and Clara’s role in those allegorical references seemed to be to represent the writers/producers. Who, of course, are the people who always do make sure the Doctor lives (or at least regenerates).
Once she’d done her job in S7 there was room to both explore a more real Clara and also to play around with the ‘control freak’ nature that’s inherent in being an avatar for a group of people who script the Doctor’s life. 🙂27 July 2017 at 00:23 #61471
The only thing I can easy see that this arc did, was give any show runner/writer free reign to rewrite any existing story the way they want to. Is that not fankwank at its simplest ?
No, I personally don’t think so. I think I’d call it streamlining the canon, getting the show in shape for the next 50 years. I agree that there would always be ways around inconsistencies for future writers without invoking the Claricles but then again it was something that both SM and RTD cited as a problem and I can totally understand SM’s desire to tidy the backstory up while rendering it unobtrusive.
And like @bluesqueakpip, I don’t really have any problem with SM (or any other writer) using old serials as raw material for new ones. I definitely don’t think that the old stories should be considered holy relics to be considered forever off limits. As SM himself said when discussing canon, ‘there are no parameters’ and I think I agree. If, for example, in Hell Bent, say, he’d had Rassilon tell the Doctor that he wasn’t in fact a Time Lord and was in fact a foundling who floated up the Capitol sewage outflow in a basket of rushes I’m not sure I would have been that bothered. I would have accommodated this new information in the canon and watched with interest as it evolved in a new direction. (Because that to me is the essence of the show, it’s ability to change and mutate, to not be bound by some kind of sancrosanct series bible.) But at the same time, as I say, I don’t think Who has ever had a showrunner more respectful of the canon than SM. Even RTD played far more fast and loose than he does/did.
With regards to Tenth Planet, I think I’m also with Pip that the story does have fundamental problems — a third episode that’s cobbled together out of last-minute necessity and a regeneration scene that’s just kind of tacked on right at the end and which I always thought kind of jarred in its illogicity (is that a word?) If that can be smoothed out to the benefit of both TTP and TUAT then I’m good with it.
Of course this is all personal choice on Moff’s part and each of ours in terms of how we react to it.
I agree. All highly subjective and all that and I understand while some might have an issue. But I’m not sure I really share their reservations.
That doesn’t mean can’t also be egotistical and entitled on his part. Which other Who show runner has fixed someone else’s story for them to this extent ?
Well, I’m not sure I’d call it particularly entitled or egotistical. As I said, it’s not like he’s erasing the original of The Tenth Planet and replacing it with his own. That story will be there in the future, even if TUAC does retcon it slightly. We’ll all be at liberty to ignore or incorporate the amendments according to personal preference.
But to be honest, I really don’t think we’ll see anything that will remotely affect how we view TTP in the future.27 July 2017 at 01:38 #61472
Hi Jim. Since I didnt like (putting it mildly) or understand the Impossible Girl scenario, I expect I’m not getting the point. I dont see how the whole idea changed anything, let alone in the way you describe. Can you explain how you see things to me ? There’s no point going around in circles and I’m not going to brwak this one without some external input.
Since I grew up as a fan, before “Canon” or Continuity were invented by fandom (which – if this makes sense – I dont see myself a member of), I don’t see it as anything great or magical about the whole thing. With Who, broad continuity of the character and the revealed elements of his background is probably the most important thing.
We know Barry Letts intended the Doctor/Master to be brothers. Moff has changed that to best friends and a man crush. What’s to complain about ? Nothing I can see. Cartmel had some other idea, that the Doctor was some resurrection (?) of a long lost early Time Lord. I dont think the idea was fleshed out and if he’d actually done it, there’s nothing we could complain about. I agree with you, pretty much everything can and has been reinvented to suit the audience of each era.
Moff is free to do as he wants. That’s what he paid for. But I don’t see Gaiman – in Amercian Gods TV or GRR Martin handing over control of there artitistic endeavour to someone else. Moff and RTD certainly haven’t with Who and Sherlock for example. Why then should Moff want to mess around with Gerry Davis and Kit Pedler’s story (Gerry was script editor as well. He probably wrote the regeneration scenes).
The Tenth Planet is a complete mess, because episodes 3 and 4 were rewritten on the fly by Gerry, because Hartnell was ill. Hartnell’s role was diminished and given to Ben and Barclay. That said, I doubt the regeneration changed very much at all. Sure its an add-on which doesnt really fit very well and isnt very well explained, but it was a new concept and perhaps they thought Troughton might not have turned the show around. I certainly don’t think they considered that there would be be a bunch of people discussing that flaw 50 years later.
I’m very open to the idea that the cause of the Doctor’s regeneration is due to the Christmas episode and happened during episode 3 or the ep 4 gap. I don’t see any need to reshoot any of Tenth Planet to achieve that, although reshooting some original 10th planet scenes with David Bradley might well make it work better on screen. The Doctor’s speech to Capaldi outside the Tardis and the Doctor/Polly flip are very suggestive that fitting a new story within the Tenth Planet frame work as it exists, is not what Moff is doing. This seems like more than a minor retcon to me.
But at the same time, as I say, I don’t think Who has ever had a showrunner more respectful of the canon than SM. Even RTD played far more fast and loose than he does/did.
That sounds like a blog post to me with some story by story analysis. I’d suggest neither has done that much, other than the Impossible Girl story line, which rewrites everything we’ve seen on screen before it. It must do that mustn’t it ?
The Daleks or Cybermen don’t have any time lime that makes sense. Why should they ? If you ignore the design/costume issue, The Doctor dips into to their history at multiple different points out of sequence, without the whole time line being known in the first place. Of course, That’s before changes that might have happened because of the Time War. I don’t hear any one complaining.
If it does bother anyone enough, then they can try and piece it together (David Bank’s Cyberman book makes a valiant attempt, which completely fits into the multiple genesis scenario Moff put into the S10 finale).27 July 2017 at 05:54 #61475genek1953 @genek1953
There are many missing and reconstructed parts of Tenth Planet that provide opportunities to insert new scenes, or even to insert Capaldi into previously existing scenes as long as his voice isn’t in the audio.27 July 2017 at 11:02 #61476Anonymous @
….GRR Martin handing over control of there artitistic endeavour to someone else. Moff and RTD certainly haven’t with Who and Sherlock for example. Why then should Moff want to mess around with Gerry Davis and Kit Pedler’s story ….
I didn’t know anything about The 10th Planet (tTP) until yesterday when I did some checking. 😀
If we know that big parts of this are missing then SM filling them in seems a good idea but as @blenkinsopthebrave has commented, I don’t think SM has hubris -well, not beyond the norm (I think a writer in this show has to have a little bit -as a coping strategy!)
Comparing this with the original Sherlock Holmes is hard because there’s more available material to work with and so the opportunity to flesh scenes out isn’t required until tTP.
I think rewriting some scenes would definitely make it “fresh and relevant” to those of us who don’t know it. I imagine it’s like a symphony. 80 % of it is missing so a composer knowing what she’s doing adds more.
I think it still shows respect for the original 20%. You can continue to hear just that part and then the performance of the new version; both are “triumphant or mysterious.” Also if it was because Will Hartnell was sick then adding scenes smooths it out. Choosing to compose more of the piece doesn’t do it any “disservice” -I think it’s the opposite: it’s saying “you’re worth spending proper time on.”
I actually loved the IG arc and can see what @bluesqueakpip is saying about the fairy tale or “impossible” quality of it and also personally how it’s mixed in later, with Peter Capaldi in a world of ‘stories’: The moon as an egg, meeting the cast of Sherwood forest etc….Also I could see how the G I caused the I G -I’ve only made that connection with the letters NOW 🙁 Duh!
Some people really don’t like the IG story but I wonder if we need to remember that it was created in response to the Great Intelligence. Clara’s sacrifice saved the Doctor but I don’t understand how it changed everything we ever saw? I watched a guy on the webs saying something similar -that Clara inviting the Doctor to choose a particular Tardis was “way too shocking and retconned the whole show” when, to me, it established why the Doctor is taken where he needs to go not where he wants. It’s like we had the answer but we never had the question:
“Why this Tardis?”
Also, when you look at the GI he started the interference -Clara stopped it. Interesting that the GI doesn’t get the same flack as Clara does in that particular season. @ichabod that’s what I was getting at regarding the “sexism” toward Clara. Clara seemed this very wholesome woman referring to her mother, carrying a journal with a leaf and an incomplete soufflé recipe. Now that we know why this was so I think it’s easier to understand it? The thing with a soufflé is that it’s eaten as soon as it’s made and it’s over. 5 seconds either way and it’s no longer a soufflé so the IG was a short term project.
Clara: the Girl who is hated 😈
Thane27 July 2017 at 13:50 #61477
Moff and RTD certainly haven’t with Who and Sherlock for example.
Uh, of course RTD has handed over artistic control of Who to someone else. He handed it over to Steven Moffat, just as Steven Moffat is about to hand over artistic control to Chris Chibnall. RTD also ignored any previous ‘canon’ that got in his way – witness Kit Pedlar and Gerry Davis’ invention being transferred to an alternate reality and recreated as Cybus Cybermen.
‘Artistic control’ in the Whoniverse ends with the producer/Head Writer’s tenure – unless you have copyright on an original monster. And at least Moffat generally explains his retcons.
Why then should Moff want to mess around with Gerry Davis and Kit Pedler’s story … [it’s] is a complete mess.
I think you may have just answered your own question. William Hartnell does not deserve to have that version of the Tenth Planet as his regeneration story. It’s a mess. The tragedy is that you can see in that mess flashes of the wonderful character actor he really was.
If Moffat’s decided to do a clean up, so that the messiness is ‘explained’ for younger fans, that’s fine by me.27 July 2017 at 13:52 #61478
The only thing that is missing is the video from the final episode (and there are several short clips available from that episode, The sound track, photo’s, a novelisation and the script are all available (and now an animated version). There aren’t actually any gaps to fill in. There are spaces where you can take the Docto off for additional adventures (no one has disputed that) and the regeneration scene is different as the Tardis seems to be self operating, which would allow a new explanation to be added if you wanted to.
I’m sorry I wasnt clear enough on when talking about Gaiman. Martin, RTD and Moff. They dont just hand over there material and allow the production team to do they want to it. They take producer roles and ensure they have a significant degree of creative control over their original source material.
As for Sherlock, in particular, Moff and Gatiss took the original story idea and then rewrote them in a new and completely different way. Gatiss did something similar when he took the original Ice Warrior story as starting point for his first Ice Warrior story. If you’re going to do something like that, probably the most important criteria is make it good (Study in Pink and Hound of the Baskervilles certainly did).
Some people really don’t like the IG story but I wonder if we need to remember that it was created in response to the Great Intelligence. Clara’s sacrifice saved the Doctor but I don’t understand how it changed everything we ever saw? I watched a guy on the webs saying something similar -that Clara inviting the Doctor to choose a particular Tardis was “way too shocking and retconned the whole show” when, to me, it established why the Doctor is taken where he needs to go not where he wants. It’s like we had the answer but we never had the question:
“Why this Tardis?”
Why this Tardis didnt matter (they were all the same semi-living intelligent machines) until Moff made it matter.
I may be wrong, but the only person getting flack over the IG is Moff. It’s all his creation. Whether you like it or not is an opinion. I didnt find the arc particularly interesting to watch, although there were some very good individual stories (as well as some awful ones).The various clues about the nature of Clara, which the audience were meant to be puzzling over, weren’t used or explained (apart from the leaf). @bluespeakpip’s avatar of Moff explanation is as better than anything I’ve read, certainly better than anything Moff wrote on the show.
The time stream idea was clever, although its resolution (The Doctor and Clara “standing” inside the Doctor’s imagination and simply leaping free (really ?). I don’t know what Moff actually intended with this idea, but for me, at least, he inserted additional missing scenes into every Doctor Who story written up to that date (and perhaps every story that will ever be written given Timelines must go from Birth to Death, which hasnt happened yet).
Subsequent Clara episodes are a different thing entirely with a quite different, more complex character and a second character arc. Speaking for myself, I dont hate Clara or Moff. As @bluesqueakpip pointed out to me a long time ago, you just have to wait until the next show runner, next Doctor etc. That’s the power of the show. I think I was very lucky. I only had to wait until Series 10 to watch something I enjoyed more than the bits of season 8 and 9 I watched.27 July 2017 at 14:08 #61479
Yes of course, you’re right. But does Chibnall, say, need RTD or Moff’s approval to rewrite or add new scenes into any of their stories ? They have copyright ownership (unless they’ve agreed with the BBC to pass ownership as part of their contract). Were they even BBC employees ?
The thing is, if you went back to the original script for episode 3 and 4, and transferred some of Ben and a bunch of Barclay’s lines back to the Doctor, as originally intended, and perhaps even inserted the Doctor alongside Ben in the Rocket room, the story wouldn’t actually be that different from what we’ve got today. I expect there might have been more lines about the Doctor’s growing thin etc, but the Doctor’s illness and withdrawl from episode 3 is an effective way of showing something “bad” is happening to the Doctor, which is going to have a consequence we havent seen before. The regeneration scene would still be lumped onto the end as something separate from the story itself.27 July 2017 at 14:50 #61480Anonymous @
@nick OK, I personally thought the various clues about Clara were fully explained. I would also think the idea that this Tardis mattered -or was different -was something witnessed by other show runners like RTD and in the 80s also.
To me, “why THIS tardis?” explains away why “she” or “sexy” gets stuck or feels uncomfortable. I think it was also explained throughout the show that each individual Tardis is connected to their pilots. Normally 7 or 8 pilots but managing with one or two needing a bit of trickery and begging along the way 🙂 I think there were no insertions of missing scenes -these repairs by the claricles occurred during already previously written scenes -there was no over-threading scenes into something from 25 years ago. So no stories were changed. The GI re-wired history, or tried to, but Clara ran interference, imho.
As for avatar I’m not fully sure about that actually. It’s one way of explaining it. As an avatar you might end up believing it’s a 2D figure and neither the claricles nor Clara were that -again, my opinion!
Thane27 July 2017 at 15:14 #61481
I’m possibly overstating that aspect and you’re probably right that it didn’t need to be done but something that SM perhaps felt the show would be better off doing by formalising the conflicts inherent in the show’s history. (cf RTD’s infamous ‘ming-mong’ comment a few years previously.) The other aspect of it is that as the 50th approached, he knew that he wasn’t going to bring back any BG Doctors in the strictest sense (Curator notwithststanding), so I guess he wanted a way to tie the BG and AG eras in a more direct way than just the sly references and this was his way of doing it. It’s pretty much down to matter of personal taste whether you like it or not. Personally, I love The Name of the Doctor, it’s one of my favourites. And as for the IG arc, to be honest, I wasn’t crazy about it when it was first mooted but it ended up having a conclusion far more satisfying (I think) than I could have hoped for.
But I don’t see Gaiman – in Amercian Gods TV or GRR Martin handing over control of there artitistic endeavour to someone else
It’s a bit different though, as those are their clear intellectual properties, their ‘babies’ if you like. Davis and Pedler were essentially guns for hire (or a salaryman in Davis’s case — indeed it’s odd that he gets a credit. I thought that was verboten under Beeb rules of the time). They get a fee and unless they’ve secured the rights to the monsters, then the BBC can do what they like with their scripts. Same applies today — there’s probably very few scripts of SM’s tenure that don’t have his fingerprints on them in some way or another — and there’s no real statute of limitations on that.
Why then should Moff want to mess around with Gerry Davis and Kit Pedler’s story (Gerry was script editor as well. He probably wrote the regeneration scenes).
Well, as Pip says, if it was all done in such a half-arsed way at the time — and has since proven to be an important piece of the show’s history, why not revisit it? The other interesting question is why does SM and MG revisiting Arthur Conan Doyle’s material raise nary an eyebrow, but doing so with Pedler and Davis is considered problematic? Is it purely time? Or the fact that he’s not the first with one to do it with the ACD?27 July 2017 at 15:35 #61482
Hi Thane. It’s a bit hard for me, not having encyclopedia level knowledge of Who history, to be 100 % sure of what is on screen fact or from Terrence Dicks (and others novelisation writers) and fan thinking.
So far as I recall, the original idea was that the Tardis was in for repair/scrapping as an old out of date version, which is why the Doctor got his hands on it. The chameleon circuit problem and the lack of ability to control the Tardis were due to a combination of the Doctor’s lack of knowledge and with the Tardis needing repairs. She was a “she” in the same way most cars, steam trains and ships were “she’s” to a particular generation of Britishmen (as well as at least some other European languages).
The Tardis, as a “machine” being telepathic (or something similar) came up first in an early Hartnell story and was repeated in Tom Baker’s time (I can’t remember which episode, but he wiped some of Sarah Jane’s memories while editing his own via the Tardis). Certainly the idea the the Doctor/Tardis relationship was special/different evolved out of the very long time that they have been together. I think that’s broadly “canon” but I am hard pressed to say whether that is more of a BG fan conception than TV fact.
The only character (out of the Doctor, Master, River, Romana and any other timelord) who ever has trouble flying a Tardis is the Doctor (even Clara/Me didn’t). That’s a recurring joke from the 70s onwards. The need for 6 pilots has only ever come up once (RTD’s finale). It was never mentioned before or afterwards that I can recall. Perhaps that is a manual mode and everyone else uses the autopilot 🙂 .
At some point in AG Who, Moff or RTD evolved the idea from random uncontrolled flights to the current one of the Tardis taking to Doctor to where he needs to be. I’m not sure of that came up in the Doctor’s Wife or was implied previously off the top of my head. I like both ideas actually.27 July 2017 at 15:48 #61483
The other interesting question is why does SM and MG revisiting Arthur Conan Doyle’s material raise nary an eyebrow, but doing so with Pedler and Davis is considered problematic? Is it purely time? Or the fact that he’s not the first with one to do it with the ACD?
I can only give my personal view. There are three main approaches to using Conan-Doyle’s stories:
- Straight up reconstruction a la Granada TV versions (and some recent BBC examples)
- Completely new stories set in modern/past times (US TV’s Elementary)
- New stories inspired by the original story (the 1940s films and Sherlock)
There’s obviously some leeway with the first of these (eg Poirot where they added in Captain Hastings into many stories, where Christie didnt have him participating).
None of these involved adding new scenes or changing the basis of the original TV story years later. I’m not sure if this has ever been done before (although given sod’s law I guess it probably has at least once). That is my bug bear.27 July 2017 at 16:34 #61485
SM perhaps felt the show would be better off doing by formalising the conflicts inherent in the show’s history. (cf RTD’s infamous ‘ming-mong’ comment a few years previously.) The other aspect of it is that as the 50th approached, he knew that he wasn’t going to bring back any BG Doctors in the strictest sense (Curator notwithststanding), so I guess he wanted a way to tie the BG and AG eras in a more direct way than just the sly references
As series by series by series has gone by, I rather wish that RTD had let his head over-rule his Heart. A lot (most/all) of these issues are self inflicted because the AG team want more flexibility to go around long held concepts and traditions from BG Who.
It would have been much better of it had been a Hard relaunch (which is pretty much was anyway), which had the old show into the archive of another programme with the same name, to be dipped into for characters/monsters/ideas as wished, but also absolutely free of “canon”.
The older timers would still have watched (with the odd grumble), but without the axe that RTD and Moff has gifted them. Its hard for me not to conclude that Moff, in is own way, is just as much as a fan boy as Ian Levine in terms of what they want Who to be. Moff has stamped his own perspective on as much Who “canon” in 5 years as BG Who did in 26 years it was on air.27 July 2017 at 22:10 #61493
@nick — I must admit that I have more than a little sympathy for that POV and I think I would have really liked to see hard reboot of Who. If for no other reason than there are some great stories and ideas in the early years which now suffer from the approaches and attitudes of the times and it would be great to see them revisited with a modern sensibility. (How great would The Daleks be revisited with modern questions of resistance/terrorism/racial intolerance? Or the sexual politics of Galaxy Four?)
But in the end, I can see why RTD made the decision he did. It speaks to his love of the show and wanting to see a continuation rather than a restart. Plus it offers the best of both worlds, so to speak.27 July 2017 at 23:26 #61494
Basically, I’d need to see the original contract, but if it’s anything like the modern contracts then Doctor Who was probably classed as a ‘long running series’ and the BBC has the right to make any alteration, add scenes etc. The needs of a weekly serial like 60’s Who meant producers might need to make rapid script changes and not be able to get hold of the writer – so they usually had such a clause.
There’s also a clause in the modern agreement which deals with commissioning someone to make massive changes in source material. The normal thing would be, even though the BBC probably still has the legal right to make massive changes, to enter into good-faith negotiations with either the original writers or their heirs. They may well have done something similar with the family members of the original actors.27 July 2017 at 23:40 #61495
None of these involved adding new scenes or changing the basis of the original TV story years later.
The various Star Treks have done it quite a lot.28 July 2017 at 00:22 #61496
🙂 Thanks. Font of all knowledge.
I do know that various BG Who characters belong to the writers or their heirs and permission is need to use their characters. I don’t know if the BBC has special rights that differ from use in other media (Books etc).
I must have missed the Trek stories that have done that (not entirely surprising on my part). I don’t think that makes me feel any differently about it though.28 July 2017 at 01:01 #61497
Here’s a brief taster…
With regards to writers and rights, I believe that it used to be more standard for writers to keep the rights to creatures or characters they created until Haisman and Lincoln created such a fuss with the Yeti and the Quarks that the contracts were changed to ensure the Beeb retained all rights unless, presumably, there were special arrangements made. (All this from hazy memory, I’m sure @phaseshift or @bluesqueakpip did a blog on it once upon a time.)28 July 2017 at 05:27 #61498Anonymous @
Nick, if you say there’s not much missing -that’s there’s a novelisation, animation and photos then this IS something missing isn’t it? It’s not in a story fully captured without poor video etc so to get rid of that “mess” or to supplant it (implant it: not sure of the word @juniperfish!! thank you for quietude. That really helped!) would be great for most people. But I think I said you can have ‘both’ there -the original unfinished and the new one without declaring the new one is ‘better’ or ‘right’ just different maybe?
As for the Tardis yep it was a Type 40 which was in repair shop but we assume it’s telepathic which Baker had in his lines? So if it’s telepathic then it can take you where you need to go?
I think Mum wrote about this on the Sherlock thread ages ago whereby MoffGat provides…..**SPOILER for last episode of Sherlock ahead ***** the A and the C and we fill in the B without needing to be told -because we can work it out ourselves. So in one of the later Sherlock ‘sodes we have Watson chained in a well (A) and then we see him rescued having witnessed bright search lights and search dogs (C) . So B would be him or someone undoing the chain which would have ensured he drowned unless the water has stopped or the chain broken. END OF SPOILER***
Much of Who under Moffat has expected us to work out the little teasers on our own but as long as they don’t interfere with the ‘why’ or the story between people and how the people grow because of that meeting then it’s not a difficulty. So in this case A =stolen Tardis; C= telepathic comment and so B= Tardis can take you anywhere but not necessarily where you originally think.
It goes beyond conscious or even artificial ‘wants’ into needs and that is mystical. I like the idea it’s organic and if he’s this amazing alien, talented, gifted, fantastical then his house, like a Hobbit home, is also ‘him’ (or ‘her’). Like anyone’s home it’s an open book about the way they live.
In my house I can see Mum’s influence on EVERYTHING from the framed music sheets from the 1600s to the open shelving containing copper and glass containers with everything from tea to breadcrumbs because she is, or was, a fanatical cook.
Thane28 July 2017 at 06:15 #61499Anonymous @
Yes, I like the idea of a complete re-start or hard re-do -that would’ve been amazing! but I also liked what we got: a reboot with some similarities and a few changes, @jimthefish.
I think Mary Sue needs to be defined differently. A friend of mine said: in modern use it’s that little picture near a message -like Mum’s garden on this picture . Or like in the film Avatar where the human consciousness is uploaded into a ‘thing’ like in Dances with Smurfs.
It also resonates with Hindu mythology. I think I did an entire term of iconic non-Western religious tradition last semester.
Clara is a perfectly ordinary woman (and you’re right @nick it should be ‘woman’ rather than ‘girl’ and my friend pointed that out too and other sexist language which creeps into usage without anyone batting an eyelid) who dives in to save the Doctor after the GI has deliberately inserted himself into the time-stream on Trenzalore; a braid (trenza). So the glittering curtain of the Doctor’s zig -zag thru space will collapse.
So when she jumped she saved him and other planets essential to the Doctor’s ‘plan’ but unaware of other claricles. This is why she appeared in the Dalek with her soufflés and later, as a Nanny. She seemed quite 2D.
Any weighty personality and stronger characterisation came from her no longer being the IG and now a regular companion -but one who is strong, clever, witty and virtually PC’s ‘carer’ so he “didn’t need to care”.
When In Deep Breath, the Doctor says “You look but you don’t really see me” this was a momentous connection -for me- with Clara’s IG arc: we looked but we didn’t really see. We couldn’t embrace her, she was gone. In an instant of time. But she’s not an avatar there or even a sprite. She was living independently throughout his time-stream.
But the Doctor could reach in and effectively pull her out. That was the story though: her protection and rescue of the Doctor and the people he’d helped . I think Nick you asked about what Moffat’s intention was with that ‘ending’ and I recall Mat Smith with injured knees unable to carry Clara out. But as a TL with concord over time the Doctor could reach in and collect her. He could speak telepathically to people, he could ‘shush’ people immediately and probably hypnotise them too! 😀
But I think Clara is no Mary Sue which is when the author injects themselves into the story. I think Mum would also say it’s not “the author’s voice” either -but that’s a different thing.
I think Neil Gaiman made some canonic changes when he introduced the Doctor’s Wife -it got rave reviews but I imagine some fans not liking the fact she could speak and enjoyed being called ‘sexy’. He really mourned her loss -the fact he couldn’t speak to her in a corporeal body? I hope that Chibnall could bring that back!
ALso, I wonder just who the companion would be next and is Nardole gone now? Did he die saving the humans?
The topic ‘Spoilers (3)’ is closed to new replies.