Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
20 February 2020 at 16:30 #69764
Just came across the cast list for the two final episodes, and it seems that the Master is back, and, I suspect, based on the actors, perhaps a Time Lord or two. I feel terrible saying this, but, I should be more excited than I am.
19 February 2020 at 03:04 #69746More reflections on pacing. If you compare what Moffat could do with an episode like “Heaven Sent” to all of the Chibnall present/future episodes, there is simply no comparison. “Heaven Sent” was paced in a very slow way…and it was hypnotically riveting. To be honest, I think Chibnall would be incapable of that. But it is not just about the pacing, it is knowing how to engage the viewer in a world that has been presented to them that bears no relationship the the world they know, amd yet capture them, almost hypnotically, until the resolution.
So, I would tend to agree with @mudlark while also reaffirming my point about pacing.
18 February 2020 at 19:06 #69738Chamber pots. I always remember a brilliant sketch done by Alan Bennett in a comedy sketch show back in the 60s (It might have been Beyond the Fringe, but I think it was another show that I cannot recall). In it, he plays an antiques dealer, and a clueless, but pretentious, couple come into his shop, and their eyes focus on a Victorian chamber pot. Bennett, as the antiques dealer, realises the calibre of clients he is dealing with and comes over to them.
Wife: “Could you tell me something about this lovely piece?”
Antiques Dealer: “Well madam, this is, in fact, a very rare Georgian breakfast bowl.”
Wife (excited): “Really?”
Antiques Dealer: “Oh yes, madam. In Georgian times that ate very large breakfasts…”
And, of course, the couple depart with their proud purchase.
17 February 2020 at 23:49 #69716The ghosts. A couple of people have commented on the ghosts, and I am now starting to wonder if they are more important than we realize. Given that the monster in the episode is the half-formed Cyberman, with his allusion to Frankenstein’s monster, the show could easily have been a variation on the novel’s subtitle, “The Modern Prometheus”. But they chose to call it “The Haunting of Villa Diodati”. Yet Graham was (I think) the only one aware of the ghosts. Why, then, give the story that particular title? Unless it had a greater significance than we are according it.
17 February 2020 at 22:38 #69715I wonder why it is that the Chibnall historicals seem to be so much the best episodes of his era?
Could it be the pacing? The futuristic stories happen at a frantic pace–almost like a video game. They are not just cluttered with colourful imagery and explosions, etc, but also with characters running and jumping from one setting to the other. It is all happening very, very, fast. And (for me, anyway) the faster it happens, quite often the less engaging it becomes. It strikes me that when they do an historical story, on the other hand, the pacing is slowed down considerably–the historical characters tend to walk rather than run, and there is time given to focus on the historical veracity of events (the bus in “Rosa”) or to draw attention to the historical veracity of prose (this episode).
I am sure there are other factors involved, but I do wonder if pacing is an important one.
17 February 2020 at 20:28 #69705Oh, and one shouldn’t forget Graham’s superhuman ability to hold it in during the whole night! Is there the makings of a bonkers theory there? Well no, I hope not!
17 February 2020 at 19:18 #69703Well, yes, that was a good episode! A couple of brief thoughts: Pacing. Unlike previous episodes this season and last, this one was paced in a way that you could both follow the story and become emotionally invested in it. Content. There was just one story, unlike some previous episodes where the companions were split up and there were multiple, competing narratives. Resolution: the Doctor’s decision to give the Lone Cyberman what he wanted in order to save Shelley (and therefore the future) made total sense. In other words, this was a very well written episode. And one, I suspect, that might even encourage some younger viewers who know nothing about Byron, Shelley and Wollstonecraft to actually look them up. Which is exactly what Sydney Newman would have intended back in 1963.
16 February 2020 at 04:12 #69684Just watched the first episode of the Gatiss and Moffat version of “Dracula”. Loved it! It is Gatiss and Moffat doing what they do best; being incredibly clever (Van Helsing, the sleek adaptation of a very Victorian novel) and witty (Harker: “You’re a monster! — Dracula: “And you’re a lawyer. Nobody’s perfect”). And…frightening. As I said to Mrs Blenkinsop when the credits came up: “Tonight, we leave all the lights on.”
15 February 2020 at 19:04 #69681Hi @davros
This is probably a question for our resident Time Lords, @craig, @jimthefish, @phaseshift, who manage the site. In the interim, there is always the “On the Sofa” thread, which is open to all Who-related discussion.
13 February 2020 at 20:45 #69669“Frankenstein Unbound”. What a fantastic movie!
Of course, the problem with watching Ken Russell and Roger Corman now, is that we are possibly setting ourselves up for disappointment with the approaching episode.
12 February 2020 at 05:18 #69661Real Life…yes, it can be problematic. In a way, this site is my escape from it. But no, you can catch up. And my experience is that this site actually helps with coping with real life.
11 February 2020 at 23:05 #69658Thinking more about this encouraged me to go back and rewatch the very early two-part “Edge of Destruction” from 1964. In a way, it has something in common with “Can You Hear Me?” in that it deals with irrational fear, paranoia, and developing the relationship between the Doctor and the companions. On the question of the relationship, “Edge of Destruction” resolves early tensions between the Doctor and the companions who feel, by the end of the story, more comfortable travelling with the Doctor, whereas in this story the companions show all the signs of wanting to return to their lives back on Earth. In terms of how it deals with the relationship between the Doctor and the companions, I think “Edge of Destruction” is quietly effective. On the question of fear and paranoia I have always felt “Edge of Destruction” was a cracker, both when I saw it as a child and on subsequent viewings. The scene of Susan with the scissors remains extremely unnerving today. In 1964 it was even more so. As a story, it has come in for a bit of flack over the years, partly because it was written rapidly as a “filler”, takes place entirely within the confines of the Tardis, and features no monsters. But, in spite of all that, I think it was more successful a story, and more successfully realized, than “Can You Hear Me?”
11 February 2020 at 19:42 #69655Looking back over the previous comments I find myself in agreement with all your points on this one. For example, I agree with your point that Yaz’s mental health issue might have been more effective if it had been seeded in previous episodes. Also agree strongly with your points about the Whittaker Doctor. She seems to have forgotten an awful lot about her previous iterations. For me, this plays out most clearly in what I see as the surprising lack of empathy and authority in this Doctor. In the episode, there is a clear demonstration of empathy and authority displayed by the policewoman who sets Yaz on the road to recovery. I could see a range of previous Doctors (both BG and AG) acting this way. But not this Doctor. This is the main reservation I have about this iteration of the Doctor.
11 February 2020 at 14:13 #69650Darn me if I am wrong but
Well, there was Ian, Barbara and Vicky during the William Hartnell years. But that was when they had multi-episode stories and the companions did not crowd out the story-line as much as they seem to do at the moment.
11 February 2020 at 03:41 #69643Another reflection on my previous comment about the Doctor’s lack of authority. It was a line in “Fugitive of the Judoon” where the Doctor is being driven by Ruth to the lighthouse, and the Doctor says: “I’ve never been in favor of growing up.”
Now, this is a Doctor who was a grandparent. Either she has forgotten all about that, or Chibnall has. Because it just sounds wrong.
11 February 2020 at 03:07 #69642Well, I tend to be rather skeptical of this one. For me, it was way too cluttered, and the “issue of the week” was so full-on that it drowned out any narrative coherence. There was not just one character dealing with the crisis of mental health, as in “Vincent and the Doctor”, there was a huge cast of characters–companions, friends and relatives of companions, characters from 14th century Syria, Eternals. On the treatment of fear–a key element of the episode–if one compares it to “Listen” or “The God Complex”, too much is going on in this story to do the treatment justice.
And in this episode in particular, I was acutely aware of an issue that has troubled me during all of the Chibnall/Whittaker period– The Doctor seems to be both consciously written by Chibnall and portrayed by Whittaker to not simply lack a sense of authority but to eschew the whole issue of authority. Does the Doctor provide comfort to those around her (like Graham)? Well, clearly no. In fact, she doesn’t do all that much at all except to be hyper-actively clever with her sonic screwdriver at the end, before suggesting (even though all three companions have just has some pretty awful experiences): “Hey, what about Frankenstein?”
Perhaps Chibnall’s agenda is something like: “We shouldn’t look up to authority figures, we should be responsible for our own destiny.” Whatever. But this iteration of the Doctor has yet to really engage me.
10 February 2020 at 17:00 #69634Hi @rob
Yes, I have been watching and singing its praises over on the TV shows thread. I think it is brilliant. And I very much like the darker iteration of Starfleet, which captures the darker times we live in. I used to fondly refer to NG back in the 90s as “Californians in outer space”, but this new show reflects a world shaped by Brexit and Trump. Yet Picard himself retains his moral core, and the conflict between Picard’s ethical principles and Starfleet’s questionable agenda is the stuff of great drama, in my opinion. I cannot wait for the remaining episodes!
10 February 2020 at 03:09 #69628Here I am, on the wild, windswept coast of an island off the coast of Canada, waiting with bated breath for reactions to the latested episode, and (except for the noble exceptions of @spider and @jomomentor), nothing…
Where is everyone? I know that the government has been taken over by something worse than alien invaders, but…
7 February 2020 at 03:07 #69596@craig, @jimthefish, @phaseshift
Is there any chance of a new page for “TV Shows”?
The page is in use again and it is way overdue for an upgrade.
thanks.
7 February 2020 at 03:00 #69595Just watched episode 3 of “Picard”. It was simply brilliant. I have not seen a TV show for years that is as good as this. As Mrs Blenkinsop said, after the credits came up: “It’s all in the writing.”
And it’s true.
6 February 2020 at 22:01 #69590Hi @whisht
Yes indeed. Without a doubt, I would suggest you watch the two-part story “The Best of Both Worlds”. The first episode was at the end of Season 3 and the second episode opened Season 4. In terms of who Picard is, what he stands for, and what he has experienced, this is the perfect background viewing for the new “Picard”.
Then, once you start watching “Picard”, you can always go back and watch other Next Generation episodes.
6 February 2020 at 17:17 #69587Watched “The Empty Child” two-parter again last night, in part because of the use of the idea of the vulnerable child (in light of the recent references to the Timeless Child). Had not seen it for ages, and was struck by both its pacing and its juxtaposition of rather corny humour with a rather frightening sense of dread. To me, it did not really work as well as it should have. But the main thing that struck me was that, given that it was a Moffat-written story, it introduced both Captain Jack and psychic notepaper to “Who”. Is there anything in AG “Who” that Moffat is not responsible for? It also struck me that the Whittaker Doctor is the only AG Doctor that Moffat has not written for. Make of that what you will.
4 February 2020 at 18:43 #69575Could “two brains” refer to the Ruth Doctor? (“We’re the the same person”). No, probably not.
4 February 2020 at 02:59 #69570Well, I surprised myself by actually enjoying that! I thought all the characters (and there were a lot of them) worked really well. For me, the married couple were great, the companions worked better than any previous episode, and even the blogger (who came in for a lot of flack upstream) was ok, I thought.
The “lesson” (ie, plastic is bad) was done in a rather clever way, and.. pthis is the thing I was surprised by…I thought the Doctor worked well in this episode. I say surprised as I have felt that Jodie Whittaker has, in previous episodes, lacked the necessary sense of “authority” for the Doctor (eg the previous episode, where I felt the Ruth Doctor had the authority that “our” Doctor lacked). But here she worked. Why? Still processing that.
Finally, totally agree with @nerys that Yaz shows no signs off self-destructuction. In fact, I would go further, in saying–of all the companions– that this episode demonstrated that if and when they leave, they will leave stronger and more at ease with themselves.
2 February 2020 at 03:20 #69529Just reporting in on the second episode of “Star Trek:Picard”. Continue to think it is brilliant. Unlike the esisodic structure ST:NG, this is designed as a 10 part story. With episode 2 it is being set up as a spy story in space (and on Earth). Sort of le Carre for the 24th century. Like the first episode it is true to the spirit of NG, yet captures the realities of a changed world. In many respects I find myself thinking of the way “Who” has attempted to do the same, sometimes more successfully than others. So far, I think “Picard” is doing it very successfully.
1 February 2020 at 23:57 #69528Nah, I cannot see Clara coming back. Or even K9. In fact, if there is anything in this Oz theory, having a Toto analogy would be too obvious. But, by golly, it has everything else. Not only does the Doctor travel over the rainbow, she takes the rainbow with her…on her t-shirt.
1 February 2020 at 18:47 #695231 February 2020 at 02:59 #69515That was inspirational. Thanks so much for posting it. I have followed the whole sorry saga–but from afar. The clip gave me a sense of how it can connect with those who have to live with the reality.
As I watched it, I thought of the following clip. I know it is fictional, but it is also inspiring, as it would have been to many viewers in 1942. And your clip captured the same emotion.
31 January 2020 at 17:28 #69512Loving it! Of course, bonkers theories don’t need exact parallels every step of the way, but I await your ability to come up the version of the good witch who tells Dorothy that all she has to do is click her heels to get back to Kansas.
31 January 2020 at 05:28 #69504Another viewing…why not?
A couple of things or, rather, questions. Given that Lee, Ruth’s husband (“I’m married, and I’m 44 years old”, as Ruth says) must be a Time Lord as well–hiding out on Earth, protecting Ruth–it would be nice to know more about him. Specifically, what was in the little metal box that Gat recognizes? And then there is the guy who is the ex-bartender, trying to adapt to making espressos. He has a thing for Ruth, and has compiled a dossier on Lee. Somehow, it seems important, and yet it is all thrown away along with the poor guy’s life, when he is killed by the Judoon. Somehow, those things felt like they had more meaning than was explored in the episode.
30 January 2020 at 19:04 #69494I think that if there are any allusions to Oz then I hope(!) that they aren’t too literal
I would go back to my earlier comment about the difference between bonkerising and predicting. For me, bonkerising involves coming up with a theory that is simultaneously fanciful (with no real chance of succeeding in the prediction stakes) yet strangely compelling, based on the allusions, as a possible (though highly improbable) explanation of where the story is heading.
So, I love your explanation of how Graham, Yaz and Ryan could fit into a Wizard of Oz reading!
30 January 2020 at 02:22 #69485Still processing all your ideas (there’s a lot there!) but certainly agree that Ruth is not the timeless child for the reasons you outline. I don’t buy the idea of Ruth as the actual Doctor– a Doctor I am prepared to accept, but the actual Doctor, no. When it comes to the Master and his motivations, there seems to be a general consensus that he is genuinely outraged. But I am not sure we should accept him at his word. I am still not sure the outrage is real. It may well be feigned.
28 January 2020 at 23:27 #6947828 January 2020 at 23:20 #69476ooh, I like the idea of the lone Cyberman as the tin man in search of a heart!
Yeah, I am sure we are fed stuff as catnip clues for bonkerising but, to be honest, I enjoy constructing “theories more insane than what’s actually happening” rather than predicting what will actually happen.
28 January 2020 at 21:55 #69470Re: your twinning idea. Are we to suppose that at the moment of regeneration of the Hartnell Doctor that, even though we clearly see Hartnell’s face slowly turn into Troughton’s, somewhere else there is another Hartnell turning into the Martin Doctor? And when that happens another Tardis, another Gallifrey (one that include Gat), et al, emerges as the result of a split time line? And then at some point(?) the timelines merge again? Also, since the Martin Doctor and the Whittaker Doctor are captured by the Judoon, and Gat appears, does this mean that the Judoon have been around for as long as the Hartnell Doctor (or at least as long as the Troughton Doctor) but in a split timeline? And if Gat is around, and talking to the Whittaker Doctor, does this mean the timeline is still split?
I am just trying to get my head around this.
28 January 2020 at 19:31 #69462Fortified by coffee, another reflection. The lighthouse. Lighthouses also have connection with time, as the are governed by the tides, and the tides are governed by time. As the saying goes: “Time and tide waits for no man”. No conclusion–just a reflection.
P.S. @brewski, good to see you back!
28 January 2020 at 18:47 #69460Just finished a rewatch, and as Ruth and the Doctor are driving to the lighthouse, Ruth claims she left the lighthouse in mid-December 1999. Could this be relevant? The McGann Doctor battles the Master on Dec 31, 1999. Could the new Martin Doctor fit into the timeline at this point, somehow? I know it seems 2 weeks out of whack, but it is <i>Doctor Who</i> after all!
I also know that the McCoy Doctor regenerates into the McGann Doctor, but could the Martin Doctor lie between the McGann Doctor and the Hurt Doctor? Again the two-week discrepancy is a problem.
On the other hand, if the memories of the Martin Doctor have been covered up during her life as Ruth, that could include her entire life as Ruth, and, as Ruth, she claims to be 44 years old.
I do not have an answer, but I do wonder why we are explicitly given dates and ages, if it isn’t important in some way.
28 January 2020 at 13:47 #69440Just read an interview with Chibnall who apparently confirmed that this is, indeed, the Doctor: “There’s no sort of parallel universe going on. There’s no tricks”.
I say apparently, as the interview was in The Mirror.
I admit, that threw me for a loop (both the quote and the fact that I was reading the Mirror)…
More thinking required.
28 January 2020 at 02:47 #69430The Blenkinsop household has now viewed, discussed and read the previous comments. Like everyone else; wow. Lots to bonkerize about. But unlike everyone else, perhaps some different conclusions.
I remain unconvinced that that Doctor Ruth (my term, live with it) is either from some sort of mirror universe (to use a Star Trek analogy) or part of the Doctor’s actual timeline (past or future). I tend to think at everything from Spyfall on is part of an illusion.
Back in my comments to Spyfall I tried out a bonkers theory (based, at that point, on the fact that the Master had been living in an outback house that flew through space to another planet, and that where he had been living was Australia–i.e., Oz) that we were being set up for a story that would reference The Wizard of Oz. After watching this, I still stand by that.
Remember, in The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy wants, desperately, to go home. In order to achieve this, she has to find The Wizard. But sending her home is the one thing he cannot do. Ultimately, all she has to do is click her heels. (On a side point, in this episode the Doctor is revealed to be very, very, fragile at the end, and has to be convinced to continue her quest by her three companions.)
I just have the feeling that what we are watching is all an illusion, and that ultimately the curtain will be drawn back. And…we don’t even know at this point if the Masters outrage (“It’s all a lie!”) is real or feigned.
25 January 2020 at 02:41 #69360Yes, it was good, wasn’t it. What I particularly liked about it was the way it was simultaneously true to the spirit of the original, but had moved on, as it were, to capture the anxieties of the present. Visually, it was superb, but I am sure that is partly the result of the money available for a show like that in the US. But much more than that, the whole idea of how they wanted to set Picard in a new world was done extremely well. There was the scene, for example, when he is being interviewed for TV and is asked about the failed rescue of the Romulans, where the attitude of the interviewer is that they did not deserve to be rescued and he explains to the interviewer that it was like Dunkirk. That was what they were trying to do. And then has to point out, despairingly, that the interviewer has no knowledge of what Dunkirk was. I just loved that.
24 January 2020 at 02:28 #69352Just watched the first episode of “Star Trek: Picard”. I thought it was simply brilliant.
In the spirit of Data, I am still processing, and may offer further thoughts later, but I have not been this impressed by a sequel to a show–any show–as much as this.
23 January 2020 at 02:52 #69343A lovely reflection on Terry Jones. I couldn’t agree more. It is hard to think of many people who could bring so much laughter to so many people, and at the same time give us wonderfully insightful books on English cultural history like “Chaucer’s Knight” (which I remember very fondly, and deeply regret losing my copy of many years ago).
22 January 2020 at 12:41 #69327Hmm. Well, he looks shifty, he seems to be wearing black, and we seem to be promised a Gallifrey arc, but…why that particular character? If Chibnall is to resurrect elements of Who mythology, I am not sure that bringing back storylines from the JNT years would be my first choice…
22 January 2020 at 00:33 #69320I am up for something on the Spoilers page, if you want to elaborate…
21 January 2020 at 22:09 #69313Looking at the trailer again, I was rather struck by the clip with Ryan and Yasmin, both looking gloomy, and Ryan says: “How long’s this going to last, Yaz?…Is this our lives?” (I think that’s what he said…I found it a little unclear.) Could it foreshadow a change of companions?
21 January 2020 at 20:32 #69309A bonkers theory, of course, relies on its own internal logic, and remains disdainfully aloof from the inconvenient reality of the paleontological record.
Otherwise, how could we come up with “theories more insane than what’s actually happening”?
21 January 2020 at 19:31 #69304New BBC trailer:
21 January 2020 at 17:47 #69298To add to my bonkers theory above, this also might make sense of our reservations over the mind wipe. If, as I am suggesting, time travel was stolen from humans by the Timelords, perhaps it also involved a collective, planet-wide mind wipe, so that humans were destined to have no memory of their earlier achievements. Essentially, the fate of Donna, but on a planetary scale. Under this bonkers theory, perhaps we are being fed “troubling” issues concerning the justification of wind wipes in these episodes precisely because it is leading to a much bigger revelation.
21 January 2020 at 10:33 #69295Damn. A bonkers theory spoilt by poor spelling. I meant, of course, Earth.
21 January 2020 at 10:26 #69294Just to add to what I said above, while it was a good historical, one of the reasons why I think “Rosa”, for example, will linger for longer as a memorable episode is that, instead of rather disposable alien monsters, in “Rosa” the monsters were us.
@tardigrade raised the idea that perhaps “the lie” that seems to underpin the projected Gallifrey arc might involve the theft of time travel from another race. Let’s run with that for a moment. Here is an exploratory bonkers theory. What if the Time Lords stole the secret of time travel from humans, at a stage of development long preceding our understanding of Earth’s history? Perhaps somewhere deep inside the Doctor (and even the Master) their suppressed memory or knowledge of this helps explain why the Doctor is so preoccupied with the fate of Eath.
-
AuthorPosts
