The Maldovarium

[Nick @nick]

@Thane 15

Hi Thane.

Personally I try not to get upset with the creative choices that the production team make. I always like Jenna and the way she played Clara. In series 7, Im sure it was different, because she was playing a different part in every story, which must be hard to act as a single character and the Impossible Girl concept made her character subordinate to the Doctor in each story. (as an aside, I find the use of Girl a bit annoying as she stopped being a girl in her teens. Impossible Women would be better). In my opinion, she didn’t really become a proper character until series 8, when Jenna got to play a single version of Clara.

It’s an old subject and I’m not much of a Moffat fan in practice. The Impossible Girl concept was a fantastic idea and the way Moff wrote in the mystery of her character, the leaf, her parents etc was well executed (apart from Rings of Akhaten which was a particular under-executed story). However, the denouement was pretty annoying. Jumping into the Doctor’s time line and having her personality smeared through time and space would have been fine, but having her interfere to save the Doctor throughout his lives imo devalued the Doctor as a character – he’s no longer the Doctor we know – arguable IG Clara is still there today saving his neck off screen – able to get into and out of difficult circumstances on his own behalf.

I think the next part of the idea, how does she get out of his timeline (I mean the original Clara who jumped in to save him) and continue to have an independent existence was also very poorly written. It basically didn’t happen on screen (I understand that the idea was that Matt and Jenna would literally jump free and reappear in the real world. Matt’s twisted ankle killed off showing this). Whilst this explained the fundamental mystery of Clara, many of the individual elements that composed and built up the mystery were really explained in any detail (parents, the importance of the leaf etc) and have never reappeared on screen since.

The way Moff comes up with these ideas and the style of his execution and resolution of his arcs in series 5 to 7 are a major reason why I really didn’t enjoy the entirety of these series and why I wont look back on Moff era with any of the affection I have previously. At the time, it often felt to me that unpicking the clues and red herrings that comprised the Arc story was more important to some watchers than the individual stories themselves. I may be wrong, but I think it should be the other way round (and Bad Wolf concept remains the best executed example).

Whilst I’ve really enjoyed watching the first 3 parts of this season, I think the underlying stories have been quite weak, which is why I called them quite lame when we discussed this before.

Romeo & <span class=”_Tgc”>Giulietta</span>

I can understand why your teacher might have chosen Baz Lurman’s version as its quite a “youth” friendly way into the story. I imagine the original in Iambic pentameter and older form of english may well be quite off putting. In many ways, it might be more interesting to watch scenes being acted in a play form. I recall the BBC had run a number of documentaries showing the development of some of the play with discussion between the Director and actors. I think (and am probably wrong) there was one made for David Tennant’s Hamlet (as well as a TV version of the entire play). I’ve actually visited the actual Elsinore (Kronborg) in Denmark.

Cheers

Nick

 

 

 

 

[janetteB @janetteb]

@thane15 Your mother is braver than I. Thus far I have kept away from BTL because I fear to read the bile there. Some of the comments made about Clara/Jenna and Amy/Karen were very offensive and I really don’t want to read what is being posted about Bill/Pearl but I should be wading in to the defence too otherwise we are letting the trolls dominate the sound waves which is what they want. I used to be puzzled by the hate for a character who, even if not a favourite, was so far from offensive but then I realised that they are being vile purely for the sake of being vile. I just really hope that the actors never read BTL.

And talking of negative comments, I am about to make one. I really disliked the Leonardo movie and agree that you would be much better off acting out the play. I dislike the Zeffrelli version too. Although derided by the critics probably my preferred version is the BBC one from the 80s. It has a very young Alan Rickman in it, as Tybalt I think.

Cheers

Janette

[Nick @nick]

@janetteb

I do spend time there, but to be honest there is so much absolute rubbish written that you could spend days is pointless argument. I skip most of it and try to limit myself to more factual points or to point out that the actual world is capable of supporting more than one point of view on a topic and both sides have positive and negative aspects (Brexit and Scot Independence being the hottest topics right now). Its a waste of time, but don’t think an echo chamber comprising mono-idea groups is at all good for society in the long run.

[Anonymous @]

@nick

I guess I don’t worry too much about those ‘errors’ -that the Leaf existed was enough for me, as was Mat and Clara hopping out -using his sonic would be my bet.

I don’t think Clara saving the Doctors devalued him -it made him more – human, to use an inappropriate word; less untouchable, less louche when it comes to Pertwee for example, imo.

Clara didn’t dive into the 12 Doctor’s lives at every time -I sensed it was when they all needed spectacular help at a particular nexus -but I could be wrong. The Doctor has changed in many ways since the patriarchal Pertwee period. He asks if he’s a “good man?” ; he recognises how talented and smart his companion/associates are and I think, yes, he does need saving. In the Witches Familiar Missy is talking about how the Doctor uses the sonic  to evade capture only to fall into a den of vampire monkeys….If he needs saving, just a bit, he’s more likeable, to me, at any rate.

*-_-* Puro

[Anonymous @]

@janetteb

I recall being taken to the University on a Sunday to see the Zeff. version -how titillating!

I know, Leonardo’s film I didn’t take to, either.

I DO remember Rickman -a small part (whoa, that’s from a memory across a galaxy).

Either way, his teacher,  “has never read Shakespeare.” I think if I was going to be stuck with needles I wouldn’t say “Hey, I’ve never done this before and never will again. The phlebotomist will be back on Monday.”

@nick thanks for that -I’ll pass that on. I think iambic pentameter does serve to drive the story forward, though, and certain lines mimic the action or violence in the story. But yes, Shakespeare should be listened to and played out rather than just read…

Puro for Thane (currently running for bus).

[Nick @nick]

@thane15

Hi Puro. we all agree to differ in our opinions (politely for the most part here fortunately). I would tend to say the Doctor has always been rescued or helped by his team. Whilst they are there to be danger monkies and for plot exposition and a lot of trust me I know best etc (or do as I say not as I do).

The relationship is more equal now, but that reflects the change in our society. Yes there was a lot of screaming (but lets be honest about it, the first thing I’d probably do if confronted by a Drashig is scream and run away, just like Jo).

I would describe Pertwee Doctor as being rather Paternal and quite Arrogant rather than Patrician. He knew best (but then what Doctor doesn’t), but he was never on the side of the “Authorities” nor did he set himself up as the ruling authority. Being Patrician rather requires something along those lines ?

The denouement of the Impossible Girl arc was one of the most frustrating things SM has done, so far as I’m concern. Nothing was that clear, but the inference (as I saw it) was that the Intelligence interfered across his time line – to kill him in the most painful way – but Clara acted to reverse this, by showing the Doctor a different path. The inference being No Clara no Doctor. In fact I felt entering the time line was more of a plot device to discover the War Doctor then anything else.

Re R&J

I found this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/484GwDBByzcGTGCy5bvmhLF/romeo-and-juliet

which wasn’t what I was thinking of, but is quite recent.

and this radio version (which has quite a list of well known actors in it). I guess it must be possible to get a proper version rather than this knock off in multiple parts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kt8EzPxNeA)

 

[Anonymous @]

@nick  (Puro here)

I’d stick with the word patrician -considering the class of Gallifreyans from which he came but I take the point that he was at odds with their attitudes about any other group as well as humans, in general. He had a very stern demeanour and was often condescending. But there were other doctors which spring to mind who were possibly worse…  😉

We shall agree to differ on the Impossible Girl Arc -as it were. Perhaps not an arc so much as the last car on a train!

Thank you very much for the links to R&J. He’ll get right on that – got to school; was sick, so turned around and caught the bus home. ( _-_ )

Kindest,

Puro

[Whisht @whisht]

@Thane15 – on Shakespeare, here’s a true story.

Many years ago when I was at Uni studying Illustration, a friend was illustrating Hamlet.
Now, I’d ‘done’ Hamlet for my A levels which was only a few years previously, so I could still remember it quite well.
While looking at his sketches and paintings I asked what a particular one was of.

“Oh that’s the library scene”

[“Library scene?” thought I…]
“erm, what library scene?”

He went on to describe the scene in some detail and I had absolutely no recollection of it.
I looked around for the book that I assumed he was using for reference.

“ah, no – I haven’t read it” he says.

“But I saw the film with Mel Gibson”

I didn’t quite know what to say, so I said nothing, nodded and went back to my desk to struggle on my own stuff.

[full disclaimer]
For me illustration was all about whatever text you were illustrating, trying to tease out parts to focus on and illuminate. Lots of thinking and worrying and thinky thinky thinky concepts*.

For him it was a way to draw and produce pictures.
And those pictures, drawings and paintings (as well as drawing with wire in 3D) were some of the most incredible work I’ve had the privilege to see. He is/was insanely gifted and hard working (no coincidence as being ‘gifted’ is not enough to produce that quality – you need to work hard and draw every day).

He was also one of the nicest, most thoughtful, ego-less, amazing people I’ve ever been lucky enough to know and who ended up marrying a princess!

;¬)

* as you can imagine, my stuff was often over-thought and turgid!

[Nick @nick]

@thane15 Puro

🙂 life would be so boring if we agreed on everything. I always (well mostly) find reading other people’s reasons for liking something I hated illuminating.

Since I can’t resist right now (too much free time at the moment) – do we actually know very much about timelord society to assign a class to the Doctor ? The Deadly Assassin is probably the best source, but then Moff’s version seems really quite different to Robert Holmes conception. Holmes version was certainly not a democracy.

[janetteB @janetteb]

@nick I don’t think Gallifrey is a democracy in Moffat’s version either though being alien and supposedly a very old civilisation perhaps they have come up with a better system of governance, something we haven’t thought of yet. My impression is however that Gallifrey is a highly rigid, classist society ruled by a upper class elite who don’t die so hold onto power for centuries, a rather frightening prospect.

@whisht My son is studying digital design so not entirely dissimilar to illustration. He is really loving it and enjoying hte company of his fellow students. I am quite envious. Would love to have done the subjects he is doing.

I was studying Shakespeare at Uni when the Gibson film came out. We were advised not to see it. Likewise the Branagh version which came out around the same time was also frowned on and I did not see it until last week. It was far better than I expected but I suspect better suited to television than cinema. Thankfully we only studied R&J which is one of my least favourite Shakespeare Play briefly in second year when I made my greatest gaffe at Uni. Forgetting that I was a good five years older than most of the other students who had gone straight to Uni from school, I dismissed Romeo as “just a typical immature nineteen year old”. The tutor cleared her throat and reminded me that everyone else in the room was nineteen. So not a diplomatic thing to say, though probably true.

Cheers

Janette

Cheers

Janette

[blenkinsopthebrave @blenkinsopthebrave]

@janetteb Funnily enough, I went to university when I was 24 as well. Having tried design college, and then worked for a couple of years where the world of ideas never entered the workplace, I loved those undergraduate years. In some respect, the most enjoyable time of my life (until, decades later, I met Mrs Blenkinsop). Those undergraduate years were the Whitlam years, and I survived on my meagre savings from the previous years of working, and you could survive on the smell of an oil rag back in the 70s. And, of course, tuition was free, thanks to Gough. I would never have had the opportunity to go to university if it hadn’t been for that. Halcyon days.

[Mudlark @mudlark]

@thane15

Let’s play the damn parts! That’s fun.

It is! We read a great deal of Shakespeare in Eng. Lit. when I was at school, possibly because the head of the English Department was a fan. When I look back it sometimes feels as if we did little else, though that was not really the case.  We did read them as plays, different members of the class reading the different parts, interrupted by occasional breaks to discuss the meaning of different passages or words. Sometimes we would each be given a particular speech to study and learn and act before the class, and it was indeed great fun. I don’t recall anyone ever suggesting that we should watch any filmed versions though, and in retrospect I’m glad of that. At the time it would, I think, have been limited in any case to Laurence Olivier in Henry V or Laurence Olivier in Hamlet, or Laurence Olivier in Richard III. I saw him in Othello and live, on stage,  he was mesmerising, but he doesn’t seem to have been able to dial down his Shakespearean performances for film, and when I did eventually get to see the films in question my chief impression was how ‘stagey’ and mannered his performances were.

@janetteb

I dismissed Romeo as “just a typical immature nineteen year old”. The tutor cleared her throat and reminded me that everyone else in the room was nineteen

Even when I was eighteen my opinion of Romeo was that he was an immature nineteen year old, but at the time I did have the reputation of being a tiny bit weird 😉

Between the end of the GCE ‘A’ level exams and the end of the school year there was an interval of three or four weeks, and it was the tradition at my school for those who had just taken the exams and had nothing else to occupy them to produce a play for the entertainment of members of the school, their parents, friends, and anyone else who cared to turn up for the performances.  We, in my year, did Romeo and Juliet.  The play was ch0sen by the Head of English and, although it wouldn’t have been our choice, we hadn’t the heart to argue as she was due to retire at the end of the term.  We did it on an open stage – as in 16th/early 17th century theatre – with stylised sets and minimal scene changes, and once, prior to the performance when a group of us were discussing it with one of the teachers, someone said that they would have preferred more naturalistic sets. I countered that this was a very trivial objection, given that the plot of the play contained several highly unrealistic elements and centred on a couple of besotted teenagers. I was rebuked by the teacher for my cynicism and told to concentrate on the poetry.

It’s been a funny old day. I’ve been trying to work but kept going back to the local news sites, in a scab-picking way, to check up on the County Council election results as they came in. Not much cheer there. UKIP were totally wiped out, but apart from one division they lost to the Lib Dems and another one lost to Labour, the only beneficiaries were the Tories who now have overall control of the Council, even though Labour gained three seats and the Lib Dems one seat overall.

My predictions for Norwich were correct, however and the city is now a solid block of Labour red, the party having gained three divisions from the Greens and one from the Tories.

[blenkinsopthebrave @blenkinsopthebrave]

@thane15, @janetteb, @mudlark, @whisht

For a wonderfully self-reflexive statement on interpreting Shakespeare, it is hard to beat this clip of Joan Plowright introducing Olivier’s Hamlet to a school class:

[Whovian87 @whovian87]

New to the forum, trying to get started, hope to interact with many Whovians on many things…

[Anonymous @]

Hello all, Thane typing for Puro. And typing for myself.

@blenkinsopthebrave

I would never have had the opportunity to go to university if it hadn’t been for that. Halcyon days.

Indeed. Same here. On QandA this week Barnaby Joyce,  a miserable and unpleasant man, spoke of how ‘easy’ it is to pay back debts from university as “frankly, a 75 000 degree can be paid back at $8 a week whilst a $200 000 degree, for doctors etc is fine because, more power to them, they make good money, but as a shearer doesn’t go to uni why should he pay?”

I think he awaited audience applause. But they remained steadfastly silent.

Armando Iannucci shook his head (a guest everyone was interested in considering his views on public broadcasters etc).  I love Iannucci -watched his lecture last year which someone put up on the Forum. Mum also said that uni was a terrific time for her. I fear it’s  not the same now.

Thane’s bit:

@whisht that’s a great story . The library scene . LOL

@blenkinsopthebrave the clip was terrific. I don’t know that at all!

@mudlark I know a bit about R and J. I know or think he was pretty immature too. I have zero interest in gals -or anyone else (ahem) so I’m going to find it hard to connect. Mum says: “you should have experienced a broken heart” first. I don’t want a broken anything!

The labour vote is successful where you are? That’s terrific!

And….welcome to @whovian87 enjoy our pub.

Thank you,

Puro and Thane

[IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan @pedant]

@thane15

The labour vote is successful where you are?

Unfortunately it was a complete bloodbath everywhere else. Alas it is too late to get rid of that beardy twat in time for the general election.

Just skimming back and @nick, the point seems to have gone flying over your head.

Clara jumped into the time stream to repair the damage done by the Great Intelligence. This was pretty much spelled out in-story. The “pick a better Tardis” scene with Hartnell was just a sight gag and a gratuitous excuse to include him and Susan and a Gallifreyan scrap merchant (any thematic similarity with a certain other scrap merchant being, of course, entirely accidental. Not. Wait. Deliberate. That’s it).

 

[Nick @nick]

@pedant

This is what I wrote, in the second post to @janetteb a couple of posts ago:

“The denouement of the Impossible Girl arc was one of the most frustrating things SM has done, so far as I’m concern. Nothing was that clear, but the inference (as I saw it) was that the Intelligence interfered across his time line – to kill him in the most painful way – but Clara acted to reverse this, by showing the Doctor a different path. The inference being No Clara no Doctor. In fact I felt entering the time line was more of a plot device to discover the War Doctor then anything else.”

Please tell me what I had misunderstood ? Far from flying over my head, I probably drew a different conclusion (based on interpretation) of this idea than you have.

The No Clara = No Doctor statement is a short hand explanation for my dislike of the whole think. A longer explanation is probably warranted though.

I may be wrong, but either

• the GI & Clara over wrote every (or whatever % you think is right) BG and AG story that’s been on screen to date (and given its the Doctor’s time line, every story in the future). By this I mean that every story we have watched to date, no longer happened in the way it was originally shown. To me that is a rather big deal. Why did I bother watching any of these stories over the years ? It would appear that Moff as a writer and show runner, doesn’t care at all.

or

• You can prefer to conclude that every story remains the same as before. However, surely there has to be an off screen bit, where the GI interferes to defeat Doctor’s original solution until over turned by Clara. I guess this is what Moff probably intended. However, I suggest that it makes the Doctor particularly stupid, in that he can live over 1000 year, with multiple regenerations without noticing dear Clara until just before the end. Am I allowed to suggest that without Clara dipping in on his side, that the Doctor might never achieved any of successes ? Maybe the Doctor wouldn’t even have become the Doctor we know with out Clara. Given Clara enters his time line, I expect the multi-Clara-icles spread throughout time and space must “know” all of the original outcomes from each story and the changes that the GI’s interference causes, in order to fix the problem. I think this is a catch 22 situation, while also being a time paradox. It comes down to opinion, but “Impossible” isn’t the right description for Clara im

or

• as per above, but the Doctor has long recognised Clara and sat on the whole thing waiting until something eventually happens to him which explains who/what Clara is

All this took up, about 10 minutes screen time and the payoff was the appearance of the War Doctor out of forgotten memories followed by (off screen) one leap to freedom for D11 and reassembled Clara (and dead GI).

I don’t think Moffat is stupid, so I’d have to conclude that he thought through what this could mean above and beyond the superficial Clara saves the Doctor, when thinking through the beginning of the Clara arc, which continues into the next two seasons. We know he thinks the basic idea through from the outset, when he invests the arc story, even if he edits and modifies as he goes.

I don’t know what inference or deeper meaning, or not, anybody else here drew from this occurrence.

Yes I can be accused of over thinking this stuff (but as Bluesqueakpip showed with her blog post on how the War Doctor special might work in terms of time lines) quite simple ideas can turn out to be very complex if you try to explain why and how.

If you or any one else can explain to me why I’m out of my tree, over analysing this, missed the key point etc, I would be very grateful to hear it.

Cheers

Nick

[Anonymous @]

@nick  (hi Nick, this is Thane and Mum, puro is helping so forgive my confusing sentences!) and @pedant

every (or whatever % you think is right) BG and AG story that’s been on screen to date (and given its the Doctor’s time line, every story in the future). By this I mean that every story we have watched to date, no longer happened

Interesting: I actually thought that Clara, in throwing herself into the Doctor’s time-stream, gave  occasional moments of assistance, when he barely -or completely -failed to (or needed to) recognise her.  For instance, there’s a flash of Doctor 10 overlooking the empty city which is the Library Planet and where he’s accompanied by Donna to remove the Vashta Nerada. I don’t see it as Clara over-writing everything that the Doctor has done as if without her, he wouldn’t have succeeded . It’s a timey whimey problem 🙂

The G.I’s plan was to wreck misery and destroy all the Doctor’s good works. It’s a classic neutral ‘draw’ whereupon without Clara the GI’s scope would’ve succeeded and he might have prevented the success stories of all the Doctors. Clara re-wrote that possibly epic insertion and, on the edges, was there to ensure wherever the GI went she went too.

I don’t think that every single thing the Doctor did was now ‘turned around’ by Clara. As I saw it, it was the tiniest ‘intrusion’ or ‘assistance’ (hence the idea of an ‘assistant’ instead of ‘companion’) which ensured the Doctor was kept on track -here and there. The extent of which isn’t made clear because it’s not really meant to?

I see that nothing the Doctor has done, has effected change purely because of The Impossible Girl. He’s still there, saving lives, mediating between hostile interplanetary species but just, on occasion, whether when he absolutely needs it or even when he absolutely doesn’t, Clara popped up. Only  in the 1800s did her death spark something in the Doctor’s memory. Because it was connected with the GI implicitly there. And of course her statement “remember me….” etc.   I think if her ‘work’ was conducted anonymously then he wouldn’t need to remember her involvement. Simply because he’s so old, and is so involved everywhere I can think of plenty of reasons why she’d be invisible or hidden.  She would need to be this way to ensure the GI doesn’t recognise her either? I think that last point is really important, imo.

I too wouldn’t like to think Clara would be the Doctor after all due to the Impossible Girl arc but I don’t think it was meant to be this way?

I could however, endorse that idea on second thoughts: and why not? Behind this man’s successes, is a valid “assistant” who’s valiantly helped him anonymously here and there. She hasn’t hugely changed everything that’s happened but it makes some of his successes more plausible and gives a reason for Clara to help him as a proper companion with all that cleverness and all that love.

A lot of people didn’t like that Arc, though, or the way it was dispatched (that’s Mum’s word!) and yes it could be seen as a quick way of setting up the War Doctor. I prefer to think of ‘why’ rather than ‘how’ because I think that is more important in Moffat’s stories: the ‘why’ being about love and loyalty.  Even if it did set up the War Doctor, that makes sense. Clara knew the inner workings of the Doctor’s iterations but didn’t see John Hurt because the Doctor had ‘ignored’ him -he was no doctor, as it turned out. Or seemed.

Again, how they both got out of the time-stream is easy to imagine. I think he’s done harder things than this. And it was HIS time-stream, after all and so he could manage it. We learned that Mat Smith was to carry her out but due to his sore leg he couldn’t and Moffat explained that.

A lot of Moffat’s stories show you the ‘A’ and the ‘C’ and the ‘B’ -the how, is something we fill in ourselves.

Anyway, I hope this helps. But again, I think you’re easily not alone? Other people would totally agree with you on this part of that season. A lot of people (including members here) thought Clara was better with the Impossible Girl/Woman Arc behind her. I really liked it, imo, but we all have made good arguments for either possibility I think. Preference is a personal thing!  I would like to know (if you don’t mind) if there are other things you think plausibly needed to be better referenced? I always used to wonder why Clara,  as the main Clara, was “born under a clock tower.” This was said a few times and I was a bit confused when that wasn’t sorted. Except Mum said: “pretty much everyone is born under or near a clock” so that bit of confusion makes sense. I think Clara’s leaf was also dealt with really clearly. But it was also a metaphor.

Thank you for reading (Mum says I’m not ‘pithy’ and she’d be right! 😀

Thane (and Puro)

 

[Missy @missy]

Thane:

But I wonder about the focus on her colour, her sexuality and her deep voice. On the most horrible threads of the BTLers there’s much talk of her being a ‘man’ which is rude and gross. Mum’s had a word or two and then they attack her!

Still, one has to stand up! If they’re shooting at you, you know you’re doing something right.

Quite right too. I admire your mum. It can get you into a lot of trouble, and sometimes bullying, but what the hell – as the doctor would say.

I wasn’t fond of Amy or Martha, but did quite like Rory, which is not to say I disliked them. Rose, Donna, Bill and Clara suited me better. But the best companion of all and my favourite,  is of course the TARDIS. She’s a bad girl this one, and likes trouble.

 

Missy

[Anonymous @]

@missy

It can get you into a lot of trouble, and sometimes bullying, but what the hell – as the doctor would say.

Oh, I must  not have explained that well at all! I think if the posters, in their echo chambers of nastiness call certain female leads “whor**” or “she may as well be a man” then it’s up to morally upright people to say: “stop, that’s wrong.” To say that, or write that isn’t bullying. But if it becomes that -and we attack that person – then we become as bad as those people saying the rude or personal things. To quote a certain @pedant “some things must never be allowed.”

I don’t think the Doctor would allow bullying. I think PC spoke about online cyber bullying of people who like/ don’t like aspects of Doctor Who -so he’s on record as being strongly against it. Bullying is never right.

Thank you,

From Thane

[Whisht @whisht]

ooh @Thane15 – I think if you re-read @missy‘s post I think she’s agreeing with you.

ie it can lead to bullying of the person stepping in, but sometimes its worth the risk to speak up.

[Whisht @whisht]

@blenkinsopthegreat – I’d entirely forgotten that clip of Arnie!
Its brilliant !

and love the fact they got Joan Plowright to ‘introduce’ Olivier to the kids!

[Anonymous @]

@whisht @missy

Oh heck! Sorry about that. I can see now what you meant!  -others then bully the person trying to say the right or polite thing?

I got it now.

Thanks,

Thane.

[Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip]

@nick

The inference being No Clara no Doctor.

My bonkers theory: Clara was the avatar of the Production Team. 🙂 It was, after all, the 50th Anniversary Season. At the time I remember going through each episode in the Clara section and pointing out that you could summarise each plot by a summary of a period in the history of Doctor Who, the series.

Why did the Doctor survive everything that could be thrown at him? Because the production team, also known as ‘Clara’, made sure of it!

[Nick @nick]

@Thane15 @pedant

Hi Thane and Puro

I don’t think I’m pithy much either. It’s not easy to be concise if you really want to explain your reasoning. Stating conclusions without explanation “opinionating” is a modern curse, which can only cause arguments along the lines of my opinion is better than yours. Explanations permit debate.

I’m glaf you thought the leaf metaphor was explained. It must have sailed past me (Rings of Akanatum was one of the poorest stories in AG Who, although it certainly had the potential to be something much much better than that).

I assume born under the clock tower is meant to be a clue that “Time” is especially important to her life. These sort of things are written by Moff to add depth and provide a narrative clue to what the arc’s meant to be about. Much of the time Moff doesn’t see the need to explain the actual meaning. Ihe meaning isn’t that important, its all one big metaphor.

A +B = C. You’re right. Moff probably had his concept quite well worked out, but He is more interested in the Outcome and the clues (red herrings as well) that he provides along the pathway from A to C and the details of how or even why. I remember back in series 5 or 6, reading @bluesqueakpip ‘s posts trying to tease out the clues and discover Moff meaning. Fantastic analysis. But also that how what had seemed like a really big issue was resolved by a line of throwaway speech from Matt delivered at 100 miles an hour. I did a Science degree and PhD and have work in Finance for 25 years. For me the “how”, the details, are crucial. They are just important, perhaps more important than the final outcome. I have to differ on whether the writer should explain the “B” or not with you. I think its very important to do so. I accept that from a creative stand point, the opposite is probably true. The idea, the underlying humanity, “love and loyalty” as you say can be more important.

However, not bothering to explain, is really quite widespread. Look at current British politics. The “hard” Brexit may or may not be a good idea for the UK in the long run (obviously there will be a painful cost in the short run), but May doesn’t want to articulate any of the details or consequences of getting there. Corbyn, likewise, has identified a vast number of things on the social welfare side of the country. These things really do need fixing (imo), but he can’t or won’t articulate that this means that UK tax levels have to increase from 39% or so of GDP (now) to something closer to 45% (the EU norm for Government spending is about 47 % I recall) and to do this all of us need to pay a significant cost (which is also quite impossible for the majority given the cost of property, the need to save for retirement, the cost of raising kids etc given the salary levels most people have).

We are a society that wants it cake and eat it. We want the C immediately, but aren’t interested in the B much at all and certainly dont care much about the cost of doing these things. As a result (?) we don’t analyse or debate each other to reach a consensus, we work on unproven ideology and shouting my idea is better than yours at each other.

Digression aside, I disagree with you to an  extent.

“I don’t think that every single thing the Doctor did was now ‘turned around’ by Clara. As I saw it, it was the tiniest ‘intrusion’ or ‘assistance’ (hence the idea of an ‘assistant’ instead of ‘companion’) which ensured the Doctor was kept on track -here and there. The extent of which isn’t made clear because it’s not really meant to?”

Not really meant to – yes I agree. Moff isn’t interested in the details of “how”.

The GI’s influence on the Doctor’s timeline is killing him, multiple times across his entire life (timeline). We see Matt writhing in agony, but not what the GI is doing to him. I can only think that the GI makes changes to the events (again in the knowledge of what actually happened originally) that every time the Doctor escaped death or injury by his actions, the help of his companions or the other characters helping him, he fails. The story changes, he doesn’t escape he dies etc. This cant be a tiny intrusion in effect, even if the actual change in events is quite small. Likewise Clara’s changes cant be either. In the examples we were shown, she was there in person, directing the Doctor to avoid the GI’s traps.

It has to be more than just changing things in the background, at least for a significant number of times. Why didn’t all the Doctor’s before Matt notice her ?

“Only  in the 1800s did her death spark something in the Doctor’s memory. Because it was connected with the GI implicitly there. And of course her statement “remember me….” etc.   I think if her ‘work’ was conducted anonymously then he wouldn’t need to remember her involvement. Simply because he’s so old, and is so involved everywhere I can think of plenty of reasons why she’d be invisible or hidden.  She would need to be this way to ensure the GI doesn’t recognise her either? I think that last point is really important, imo.”

I can buy into this idea to a degree, but it’s a fig leaf explanation to explain away a problem surely. Wouldn’t the Clara-icles need more than a name change to hide. If we’d seen Clara being different people (male and female)  with the same name and personality, it would have worked better in that regard surely ? (its also a bit clever cioncept as well).

“Again, how they both got out of the time-stream is easy to imagine. I think he’s done harder things than this. And it was HIS time-stream, after all and so he could manage it. We learned that Mat Smith was to carry her out but due to his sore leg he couldn’t and Moffat explained that.”

I have to differ. I can’t imagine how. How does Clara’s personality (I cant think of a better term) get reassembled after the GI dies. Why does Clara survive, something that River (?) said was impossible. And no I don’t think the great leap to the real world is at all satisfying as a concept or something shown on screen.

If you’ve got time, have a read at this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/30/crossing-the-line-of-duty-why-fiction-would-never-get-away-with-tv-crimes

I believe this applies here (and in much of Moff Who). it’s true for RTD and BG as well of course. However, Moff’s story arc’s are more complex (on screen if not in the idea itself) and often weren’t explained that well, leaving a chunk of the audience with more questions than answer. I cant think of much more patronising than his “my 8 year old kids understand it”. Maybe being an 8 year old has changed since I was one, but I don’t recall  sitting down an analysing the meaning of anything. I just accepted everything. It didnt matter of it made sense.

As for your final question. I’d have to rewatch series 5 to 7 )probably 8, which I haven’t seen all of) and jot down a list of things that aren’t well explained to my mind.

I have no doubt that Moff is an exceptionally gifted writer and I know that a lot of people here love the way he writes and watching and rewatching, analysing the clues, the hidden meaning. But, I understand where the “moffatmustgo” brigade come from. For me, too much of his style leaves me with questions and frustrations like the Impossible Girl arc has. Apart from being show runner, Moffat has written 47 out of what will be 110 stores, by the end of series 10. No single writer, script editor, producer has had more influence on what Doctor Who is than he has (except for verity Lambert et al who kicked of the concept in the first place). There’s a good chance no one else ever will. As it often said, he threw out much of the BG Who continuity stuff, which was (perhaps) narrowing his options, but has replaced it with his own.

Cheers

Nick

[Nick @nick]

@Bluespeakpip

🙂 yes that’s the perfect metaphor. I missed that analysis unfortunately. If its still around can you point me to it. I’d love to read it.

[IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan @pedant]

@nick @thane15

“The denouement of the Impossible Girl arc was one of the most frustrating things SM has done, so far as I’m concern. Nothing was that clear, but the inference (as I saw it) was that the Intelligence interfered across his time line – to kill him in the most painful way – but Clara acted to reverse this, by showing the Doctor a different path. The inference being No Clara no Doctor. In fact I felt entering the time line was more of a plot device to discover the War Doctor then anything else.”

The Doctor was infected by the GI. It gave his time stream a nasty red rash. Clara was the vaccine (or to use a more precise medical metaphor, the serum). She assumed that she was sacrificing herself. The Doctor had other ideas.

The key to being concise is to focus on what the story is about.

For me the “how”, the details, are crucial.

And there’s you problem, in a nutshell.

In fiction the “why” is the only question that really matters. Everything else is window dressing and the less time wasted in tedious exposition the better, because down that road is flatulent explanation of exactly how River got out of Stormcage every time she fancied a date.

Who cares? She just did. It’s what she did next, and why, that is important.

“Why didn’t all the Doctor’s before Matt notice her ?”

Who cares? They just didn’t. They were probably busy saving Earth, or the Ark, or not exterminating the Daleks.

How did Clara get in and out of the time stream?

Who cares? The Doctor McGuyvered something. It’s why she jumped in and why he rescued her that matters.

And if you still don’t get the leaf, then watch Clara’s speech  – because it explains everything with great clarity and focus.

It’s on Youtube.

You have a PhD.

Try using it.

[Anonymous @]

@nick

Thank you. You’ve explained that really well -in terms of what your occupational choice might affect the ‘how’ in fiction. Telly fiction, at any rate.

I think we agree that Moffat sometimes leaves out the ‘how’ but not always?

From, Thane.

 

[Missy @missy]

@thane15  Very, very rarely but true, he does once in a while.

@whovian87: Hello there *waves* and welcome. Lots to talk and speculate about. enjoy yourself.

Missy

[Anonymous @]

A few people mentioned Line of Duty some while ago?

@cathannabel ? @jimthefish @pedant etc

Ironically, I confused this with a completely different British detective show (there are rather a lot!).

Season 2 has just begun here -though not advertised specifically with large flags and banners */*

Any good?

It appears Keeley Hawes has done something dramatic, the DSI couldn’t be reached, 3 police officers are toast but the witness (in protection) is still kicking.

Ah, and it has the delightful lass from the Midwives…

Puro.

[Mudlark @mudlark]

@thane15

Very good.  If you like intriguing, suspenseful and well constructed  police procedurals with unexpected, sometimes shocking twists. then I would thoroughly recommend it.  Mercurio takes some liberties as regards actual police procedure and strict plausibility, but the interrogations scenes, which are said to conform to strict procedure, are among the highlights.

Each season starts with an apparently new story which turns out to contain threads of unfinished business carried over from the last so, although it isn’t essential, it helps a little to see them in strict order. The identity of the protected witness and its significance, when revealed, won’t mean anything to someone who hasn’t seen the first series, for example.

The third season was good, although let down a bit by the way the final episode ended, and the fourth season which has just finished here maintained the standard and was riveting enough to make it easy for most viewers to overlook the plot holes.

 

[JimTheFish @jimthefish Time Lord]

@thane15–

If you have the chance to watch s2 of Line of Duty, you should definitely avail yourself of the opportunity. It is, for my money, the strongest series of the show and shows up any series of Broadchurch to be the half-arsed also-ran that it is. And I defy you not to be open-mouthed at the ending of the first episode. Plus Keeley Hawes gives a definite career-best performance throughout*.

(*Though it has to be said, Adrian Dunbar, not so much.)

[Anonymous @]

@mudlark @jimthefish

thank you -yes, saw episode 1 of Season 2 and…..windows were involved. Kept thinking “no, NO!”

Keeley Hawes is terrific, you’re right.

Puro

[IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan @pedant]

As am sure even non-UKers have heard we are having a bit of a general election at the moment.

This made me LOL.

[janetteB @janetteb]

@pedant yes and you have my deepest sympathy. (I hate elections. They usually leave me despairing of humanity.)

That is a lovely item. I especially liked the “Man in a suit monster”. When my S/O got his first job after graduating he had to wear a suit. I wouldn’t welcome him home of a night until he changed. Fortunately he was only in that job for a couple of months before getting a government job and the suit has gathered dust and harboured moths ever since.

Cheers

Janette

 

 

[janetteB @janetteb]

On watching Catweazle we noted that Moray Watson, who died just a week or so ago plays the father in the second series so it was a farewell to two fine actors. Also Geoffrey Bayldon has several Who connections worthy of note. He was offered the role on the Doctor back in 1963 but turned it down much to his later regret. He appeared in Creature of the Pit with Tom Baker.

Cheers

Janette

[Missy @missy]

@pedant: Re: This made me laugh.

Good one, thank you. Tom Baker was superb as the Doctor, but Peter Capaldi (in my opinion) is outstanding.

Let’s face it, most of the Doctors were great.

Missy

[wolfweed @wolfweed]

Spot the Dalek Competition…

[Missy @missy]

I saw it.  What a hoot. I do wish that the human race wouldn’t chant, it’s very annoying.

Thank you.

Missy

[Anonymous @]

Good heavens; woke up to phones and computers binging -a dreadful explosion in Manchester not long ago.

As always I say “keep strong” and fight with love.

All our love from Australia,

Melissa,  John and Thane.

(the Ilion family)

[Missy @missy]

Seconded.

Missy

[MissRori @missrori]

Yes, this disaster is another heartbreaker — it’s suspected of being an attack, and if it is, they were targeting preteens and teens…(weep). And then there’s the online reactions– ugly and cruel ones — on top of that. It’s so hard to see hope for the world these days.  I’ve sent up a Lord’s Prayer.

[Craig @craig Emperor]

I thought this was a stunning image tonight.

[IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan @pedant]

That is a stunner.

As a little salve on a truly vile couple of days, I truly lovely story about the late, great Roger Moore.

This truly wonderful Roger story from @marchaynes is soothing my aching soul. 😪 pic.twitter.com/DM7zhybLrs

— Ken Shabby (@MrKenShabby) May 23, 2017

[Missy @missy]

<span class=”useratname”>@craig</span>Emperor:  Thank you for this.

The spirit of the Blitz – I like it. Delighted that it is still alive and well.

@pedant: Unable to read the first page, I’d need a magnifying glass. Shame, but thank you anyway. He wasn’t the best JB for me, Timothy Dalton was, but he was definitely the funniest.

Missy

 

 

[winston @winston]

I am so sorry and saddened by what happened in Manchester. My thoughts go out to all those in the UK especially those who have lost a loved one. I hope the injured recover soon. We in Canada stand united with Manchester and the UK.

[Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip]

British Threat Levels:

Low: Have a cup of tea later.
Moderate: Have a cup of tea now.
Substantial: Have a cup of tea with a biscuit.
Severe: Have a cup of tea with a chocolate biscuit.
Critical: Add whisky to tea.

Fortunately, all my relatives in Manchester are fine. Stay safe, folks. 🙂

[Anonymous @]

@bluesqueakpip

I am so very glad to hear that.

Puro and family.

[Cath Annabel @cathannabel]

Like so many, I’ve been on the edge of tears since I woke up to the news from Manchester.  It says everything about these people that for them, pre-teen and teenage girls (& boys), giddy with excitement at a pop concert, are ‘shameless’ and ‘Crusaders’.  But it says everything about the great majority of people that the response was overwhelmingly to help, to go towards the horror rather than to run from it, to offer what they can .  I wrote something on my blog – it feels so inadequate but it helped me to put some of what I feel into more or less coherent words, and I hope it means something to others as well.

https://cathannabel.wordpress.com/2017/05/23/containing-the-blast/

 

[IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan @pedant]

The Poke, bless its little cotton socks, did a fine job of rounding up the #BritishThreatLevels hashtag. Even Louise Mensch managed to be quite funny. Go figure. (One not on that list which I just spotted “We only have UHT milk”)

#BritishThreatLevels is the funniest and most British response ever https://t.co/GFV48jdmTH pic.twitter.com/4Eth90kdI3

— The Poke (@ThePoke) May 24, 2017

[Author]

Posts