Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
12 December 2018 at 00:22 #66526
Have been thinking more about why I was so down on the episode as I indicated yesterday. I said that it was as if Chibnall was trying to recapture the Sydney Newman/Verity Lambert period, but it seemed filtered through the lens of Broadchurch. I still believe that. Let me go back to the Silurian 2-parter. There are obvious connections between the two Tim Shaw episodes and The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood 2-parter. In particular, the “we have to be better than this” trope. But thinking back to the Silurian episodes (which I have always liked more than others, I think) there are also strong parallels with Broadchurch. In both, a small boy disappears and is abducted. In both, the father is distraught, and goes hunting for him. Cut to the Tim Shaw episodes. In both those episodes and Broadchurch when one character loses a loved one because of the monstrosity of the crime (the father loses the child in one and Graham loses Grace in the other) both characters are determined on revenge. As is the mother in the Silurian 2-parter. The scenarios might play out differently in each show, but the parallels are striking.
Why, for me anyway, the Silurian 2-parter is more effective is that while Chibnall wrote the story, it was shaped by the show runner into the final product. In the other two, it was also shaped by the show runner—Chibnall. In the former it was presented with a sense of grandeur (partly through the astoundingly colourful visual look of the Silurian home world) and hope. In the later two examples of the Tim Shaw plotline and Broadchurch it was presented in a rather dark (quite literally) and grim way.
Still, perhaps I am being a bit harsh.
11 December 2018 at 04:54 #66475Finally got to see it, and…well, to be honest, I was not all that impressed. Yes, I could see what they were saying about “you have to be better than that” with regard to Graham. But I really think that was done so much better by Chibnall in the Sulurian two-parter.
As for the Ux—I didn’t get any feel for their uniqueness or importance. We were told about it by the Doctor, but we were not really shown it. You could restrain any two creatures and have lights shining out of their eyes, but that by itself doesn’t capture their grandeur, which is what we were supposed to see. And what we were also supposed to see, I believe, was both their grandeur and the tragedy that they had fallen under the spell of Tim Shaw. (I have another theory about Tim Shaw and the Ux representing Trump and the Republican Party, but that will wait for another day.)
Here is another thing that both the first episode and this episode had in common: they were both filmed almost entirely in the dark. Why? Was this supposed to capture the darkness of Tim Shaw? I am not sure an episode filmed in the dark was enough to do that. In fact, I do tend to compare the (literal) darkness of these two bookend episodes with, well, all previous Who, which has been full of colour, as befits a show that is supposed to be, well, fun. Educational, reflective, grappling with important issues, opening the eyes of children to science (Ian, the science teacher) and Barbara (the history teacher), but, at its core…fun.
I feel Chibnall has been reaching to recapture the early Sydney Newman/Verity Lambert period of Who but it has been filtered through his experience of Broadchurch.
10 December 2018 at 22:47 #6646010 December 2018 at 19:47 #6644310 December 2018 at 19:45 #66442Have yet to watch the latest episode (tonight, when Mrs Blenkinsop returns home from work).
I have, however, seen the trailer for the New Year’s special. So, a creature that has been buried on Earth since the 9th century, and which will kill whoever gets in its way. Could this mean, finally, a creature from the show’s past history?
Could it be–and I know just how taken @jimthefish would be with this suggestion–The Rani?
Alas, probably not. Will Chibnall continue to eschew everything from the past history of the show? Perhaps. It was just, well, Graham saying: “Does it have a name?” Then cut to the Doctor…pause…and clip ends. That does feel like we are being set up to hear a familiar name.
10 December 2018 at 19:40 #66440Have just moved this to Spoilers…just in case.
9 December 2018 at 23:16 #66406So, apart from the New Year’s special, we do not get another season until 2020.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/entries/89823d93-ca6c-486b-9c82-2a71cd1560bb
That does seem like an awfully long wait (particularly since there were on 10 episodes this year). Could this have been the reason behind a New Year’s show instead of a Christmas show–to be able to claim that the show was running in 2019?
9 December 2018 at 18:06 #66388Tonight’s title: The Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos
I wondered if the title contained a hidden message and tried rearranging the letters.
I got as far as “Teetotal Koalas” which seemed promising…
9 December 2018 at 03:56 #66362Mrs Blenkinsop and I just watched the last episode of series 10 in preparation for watching the last episode of series 11 tomorrow. We both agreed that we enjoyed it more than the first time we saw it. There is no denying that Moffat could do emotion (grand emotion) really well. The death(?) of Missy and the Master was done brilliantly (partly because of the question mark). The future of Bill and Heather was very effective. (Although, I have to confess that it would have been even more emotional for me if Bill had been there for more than one series.) Looking back on that episode, I feel that Moffat could not simply do grand emotion, but grand emotion that was almost operatic.
Nonetheless, eagerly anticipating the last episode of series 11.
5 December 2018 at 17:44 #66214Not sure if anyone has already noted it, but the reference to the “frilly bits” and the fjords is clearly a nod to Douglas Adams.
5 December 2018 at 05:19 #66195Just watched it. A story about loss. Actually, very moving. For me, it got better as it progressed. And…the frog shall come back. Actually, I really think it will.
Time to sleep on it. More thoughts later.
29 November 2018 at 14:57 #66035A couple of viewing suggestions for a newly minted 17.
First: Alfred Hitchcock’s “Number 17”
Second: Billy Wilder’s “Stalag 17”
29 November 2018 at 03:12 #6602428 November 2018 at 23:21 #66018@craig, I think you are doing a brilliant job as gatekeeper and totally agree with your approach. I suppose my post was more about a “malaise” that seems to be evident in comparison to the heady days of full-scale bonkerizing in previous years. This might sound silly, but there seemed to be more whimsical humor around in those days.
28 November 2018 at 18:20 #66010Right now, it just doesn’t feel like fun.
I know what you mean, but my response is to persevere, and to find some way of putting the fun back in. When the wonderful @craig set this site up for those of us eager to escape the lack of civility at the other place, it wasn’t, I don’t think, initially designed around bonkers theories, so much as designed as a place where genuine enthusiasts could converse in a supportive and civil environment. By and large, it remains that. So what has changed? In a way, I think that the change in emphasis in Chibnall’s approach–eschewing complicated arcs and therefore the potential for bonkers theorising–has meant that the political flame wars (which were there during the Moffat years) have moved to the foreground instead of sharing space with discussion of the arcs and the complicated stories. This was as true of the other place as of this site. It seems to me that even here now, without the opportunity for bonkers theorising of the scale that used to be undertaken, that there is a tendency, even here, for more of the discussion to be shaped by the toxic politics and trolls elsewhere, than was the case in the past.
The solution, perhaps, lies in consciously finding ways of injecting fun. It might, for example, be to make greater use of the other forums on the site–Music, Films, etc, where the discussion can be entertaining and lift our spirits, so that the fun generated can begin to to be reflected in our discussion of the episodes again. And the blogs have always been tailor-made for this site, and for the people who respond to this site. The blogs have been thoughtful, insightful, well reasoned and well argued. Both you, Jim, and @bluesqueakpip are exemplars in this regard.
Personally, I am very attached to what this site offers, and hope that it continues to flourish. Yes, the context has changed and the fun seems to be in shorter supply than we would like at the moment. But if we consciously try to find ways of reviving the fun, we might not only find more enjoyment for ourselves, but we might attract back some well-loved and much missed names who used to contribute, and attract some new like-minded souls.
28 November 2018 at 04:51 #65984Finally got to see it, and it was great! Honestly, I do not get the complaints. Do I have to spell out what the issues were about? Really?
And the complaint about modern dress. Come on! In BG Who they had the luxury of 4 or 5 episodes to allow their version of Team Tardis to change into period-specific clothing, but now it all happens in one episode. For crying out loud, is that too difficult to take on board?
Summary: an episode that perfectly captured the essence of BG Who.
Critique: the aliens were a bit rubbish, and probably unnecessary.
28 November 2018 at 00:07 #65978if you mean that short click at about 2.10, I like to think it is the sound of Morricone’s baton accidentally striking the stand. Thus imagined, it positively enhances the live performance feel of it all!
27 November 2018 at 21:37 #65970@mudlark Very glad to hear that the Mudlark hooter remains intact. I get the sense that many of us on this site are getting to the age where it feels like entropy is setting in. So it is good to hear that that is not the case.
27 November 2018 at 20:52 #65967Just reading that Ennio Morricone is retiring from live performances. Every time I watch this I find it electrifying.
27 November 2018 at 02:20 #65944Witches. I am sure we’ll all know this, but it is (always) worth watching again:
24 November 2018 at 23:01 #65897@misslegaleagle
“Extremis”
24 November 2018 at 05:41 #65887Thanks! Will investigate.
24 November 2018 at 02:30 #65883Thought I sent a version of this message a couple of minutes ago, but it seems to have gone missing in action.
@pedant Last year the BFI was about to release a restored version of the Cushing-led 1984 until Hollywood released an unloved version of their own. I really want to see the restored BFI print.
23 November 2018 at 20:20 #65873@xad4 Thanks for the reminder! It’s funny, I still have a vivid memory of watching the very first episode of Who when it was screened and yet I have no memory of the assassination of President Kennedy.
Of course, it was Australia, and to a 12 year old what was happening at Coal Hill School and in Trotter’s Lane probably had more resonance than what was happening in the United States.
And come to think of it, the screening of the first episode would have been on a different date in Australia (where the young Blenkinsop was languishing in the family home dreaming of a life in more sophisticated locales. Of course, I had not idea where those sophisticated locales might be, but I knew they were not contained in the Blenkinsop family home).
22 November 2018 at 02:10 #65833Puro, late November and already summer? One of my (few) pleasant memories of Brisbane in November was of the gorgeous jacaranda trees, with their intense mauve. Just beautiful. But then summer. Oh dear.
Out here, off the Canadian west coast it is still Autumn (or, as they say, inexplicably, Fall–I blame it all on the proximity to the 49th parallel). The leaves have both turned golden and subsequently fallen, but fortunately winter has yet to arrive (and truth be told winter is usually a mild affair here in comparison to the rest of the nation).
Am awaiting the return of Mrs Blenkinsop from work so that we might get to conquer the dark arts of technology and watch the most recent episode.
21 November 2018 at 05:33 #65817I love the concept of Savon Manor. It is so evocative. The idea of Chez Blenkinsop is positively pedestrian by comparison. No Who reflections, just admiration at the thought of Savon Manor.
19 November 2018 at 01:21 #6574818 November 2018 at 04:37 #65713I have been reflecting who a while on this before posting. On the one hand, I think JW does a great Doctor on her first appearance. On the other, it seems (as a script) to draw more attention to how to assemble the Tardis Team than how to overwhelm the viewer with the wonder of an alien on earth.
And strangely, for a first episode, there is no reference at all that this alien can travel through time.
Finally, as a character, I really think I would loved Grace to have been an ongoing member of the Tardis Team.
18 November 2018 at 04:16 #65710There are so many lentil jokes in The Young Ones–hopefully this one won’t be blocked.
17 November 2018 at 16:14 #65698Hope it goes well.
17 November 2018 at 16:10 #6569716 November 2018 at 04:15 #65677Some random (and probably rambling) thoughts on everyone’s reactions to the “Chibnall approach” to Who. My first thought is that some people seem to be thinking that Chibnall is taking the show off in a new direction, divorced from the past (ie, no arc, and therefore, as @margaretblaine pointed out, little opportunity for bonkerising.) But is it a new direction, or is it, in fact, a very old direction? I have the feeling that a number of people are thinking of Who as essentially AG Who. But I would argue that that Chibnall has a very detailed knowledge of BG Who and it is evident in what we have seen thus far.
Moffat was often criticised for being too reverential to BG Who (ie, writing for the fans–a very stupid criticism IMO). But I tend to think that Chibnall is as acutely aware of BG Who as Moffat was. He just does it in a different way. As I said in response to The Demons of the Punjab it feels (to me) that Chibnall is recapturing the approach of the Verity Lambert/Sydney Newman years. The original brief of the show was to have a show that was directed to children that was both entertaining (adventures in outer space) but educational (history lessons like The Aztecs and Marco Polo).
Well, I tend to think that is exactly what Chibnall is aiming for. A mixture of educational stories (Rosa and Demons of the Punjab) and exciting adventures in outer space. Is the silliness of P’Tang all that much different from the silliness of The Web Planet?
I think that in order to genuinely appreciate the Chibnall vision we should be going back to the Hartnell and Troughton years.
I think there is the potential for a lot of discussion left on the site. So don’t give up @ichabod or @jimthefish, or anybody. We have moved beyond Moffat. But I think there is lots to appreciate and discuss in Chibnall for those of us who have loved the show since 1963.
15 November 2018 at 20:34 #65665Yikes. Me too. Based on the language used I assume “Harriata” (and her/his/its) similar ilk have never read anything on this site.
Thanks, @craig. Stepping in to save us (which is imposed upon you far too often) is greatly appreciated.
15 November 2018 at 04:50 #65644Just managed to watch it, having taken control (for a brief time) of the dark arts of the web. And it was brilliant. I mean really brilliant. I watched “Rosa” and thought it one of the great Who historicals, but this was not just a brilliant historical, it also succeeded on the level of drama. The family relationships, the impact on Yaz. It all worked.
I have long stood up for the historicals on Who on this site. Well, let me say that both “Rosa” and especially “Demons of the Punjab” have approached the brilliance of “The Aztecs”. And from where I am coming from the praise doesn’t get much higher.
I will reflect on this some more, but I am beginning to think that Chibnall is recapturing the feel of the Verity Lambert years.
13 November 2018 at 04:36 #65608@winston and everyone else
How could one appreciate the humanity of HAL (and the voice acting quality of Dougla Rain) without watching this?
13 November 2018 at 02:50 #65605Just reporting the passing of Douglas Rain, the Canadian actor who was the voice of HAL the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
It was so ironic, and so brilliant, that he expressed more humanity than the humans in the movie.
13 November 2018 at 02:50 #65604Just reporting the passing of Douglas Rain, the Canadian actor who was the voice of HAL the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
It was so ironic, and so brilliant, that he expressed more humanity than the humans in the movie.
10 November 2018 at 02:06 #65531@pedant As you bring your car to a stop, I am sure we call identify with the universal verbal response to being hit from behind by someone in a BMW.
Glad to hear that the insurance is working out.
9 November 2018 at 05:28 #65508So, how was Myall Creek? It would have been great if you could have been in the Supreme Court as well, to hear about the trial, but I realise that wasn’t possible.
8 November 2018 at 19:28 #654877 November 2018 at 02:54 #65466T16, well it is true that I do not envy you the 43 degree heat, but I do envy you the trip to Myall Creek for your history assignment. It is a place I never made it to and would have very much liked to.
To all those non-Australians, Myall Creek was the site of a massacre of aboriginal people by white settlers in 1838. But it’s importance lies in the fact that it resulted in a trial and, for the very first time in Australia, the conviction and subsequent execution of seven of the perpetrators. Like what was presented in “Rosa”, it didn’t end the racism and violence, but it was a step forward.
Here is a good explanation of its importance:
http://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/myall-creek-massacre
2 November 2018 at 23:29 #65374The Blenkinsop household successfully mastered the dark arts of technology, and we can now watch it! “Rosa” was simply brilliant. Puro, thanks for for the suggestion, but this technological breakthrough will require less strain on the cellar. T16, good luck with the assignments, and please pass on my best wishes to Puro for the next couple of weeks.
2 November 2018 at 23:00 #65372@cathannabel Seconded. Have a fabulous time. (And your parting advice is very wise.)
Who knows, by the time you return, the discussion elsewhere on the site may have definitively established the existence of God. Or not. My money is on not.
31 October 2018 at 04:44 #65274OK everybody. Ignore the distractions, get back to Doctor Who.
31 October 2018 at 01:56 #65262Puro, I know we both love the music of “Where Eagles Dare” (the greatest opening title music ever?) so I had to tell you about a new book called “Broadsword calling Danny Boy” by Geoff Dyer. It is a short, but wonderful, Penguin title that captures everything that is brilliant about it, including the music.
Obviously, I should attach the clip.
30 October 2018 at 23:11 #65249@jimthefish I know where you are coming from re: the fans of the supercilious and slightly superior Doctors that the young female companions looked up to (although even there I suspect we are still in @pedant‘s “angry virgins” territory). But that type of Doctor was only applicable to the ’70s with Pertwee and Tom Baker. The other Doctors not so much.
And thinking back to those years, it probably says a lot about me (not sure whether good or bad) that of all the female companions to the Pertwee/Tom Baker versions of the Doctor the two I really liked were Caroline John’s Liz Shaw and Mary Tamm’s version of Romana. Both of them were self assured and just as likely to laugh at the Doctor as they were to laugh at his jokes.
As for The Macra Terror, at least I am old enough to remember it. If only one could see it again.
30 October 2018 at 16:48 #65203@jimthefish, @craig, @pedant, @thane16, and other long-standing participants to this forum,
Some random thoughts on why this current incarnation of the Doctor and the recent stories are attracting so much bile and toxic responses on the web generally and, unfortunately, even here; a site established as a place where we could engage in polite, civilized, and thoughtful discourse, among a relatively small group (that has happily grown over the life of this forum) who came from diverse backgrounds, with diverse interests, but were united by a love for, and appreciation of, the show.
One really obvious point is that a lot of the trolling and criticism is a reflection of the times. To draw an analogy, a lot of the opposition to Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor (a woman as the Doctor!?, blah, blah, blah) sounds suspiciously similar to the response 10 years ago when Obama became President (a black man as president!?). To a sadly large number of people it was, and continues to be, very threatening to their world view, which was and is bound up with a very particular notion of an ordered universe.
When it comes to the recent episodes, we see the predictable responses (too PC, too SJW, “real” Doctor Who in the past was about zany adventures in outer space and not about social or political satire or criticism, etc, etc). Of course, we know that is not true, as the show has always been about those very things. To give an example, I wonder if there is not a million miles separating the satire in a show about spiders and a megalomaniac businessman, and a show like “The Macra Terror” back in the 60s with Patrick Troughton as the Doctor? It was, many of you will recall, set in a holiday camp that was frightening in its demands of uniformity, and distopian beneath its “fun” facade. It was, of course, satirizing the type of holiday camps that were popular in Britain at the time. And looking at this advertisement for one, it’s not hard to see why it was easy to satirize:
But The Macra Terror wasn’t simply making fun of holiday camps. It was biting deeper than that. As Doctor Who has always done. So why the rabid opposition to educational stories like “Rosa” or satirical humour in “Arachnids in the UK” now? Well, perhaps because life was relatively comfortable (full employment, expanding educational opportunities, etc) in the countries where Doctor Who was shown back then, in comparison to today. Perhaps satire, for example, was easier back then. And for those old enough to remember, it was the golden age of satire. The irony, as witnessed in the toxic opposition we see to a show like Doctor Who today, is that there seems to be evidence of more ignorance of the world at large now than, in some ways, there was then.
Not especially world-shattering as a reflection, but the best I could manage after one cup of coffee and a meagre breakfast.
30 October 2018 at 03:23 #65173Thanks, but I might pass on that one. As someone very wise once said: “You don’t have to stick your hand in a fire to know that it will burn.”
Back in the morning. My morning, that is.
30 October 2018 at 01:50 #65165“white males’ chest clasping”
I think part of what is going on is captured by a term @pedant has shared: “angry virgins”.
But I also think there is something else going on, that is particular to Who.
That requires a different forum, so I will head on over to “On the Sofa”.
However, I will need to compose my thoughts, so it may take a bit of time.
28 October 2018 at 16:52 #65067Thanks, @craig! It is good to know I am no longer Who-deprived.
After sleeping on my first viewing, I still think this was a thoroughly brilliant historical, that in many respects took Who to a new level. Unlike others, I did not have any problems with the coda, as many (most?) viewers would not have been aware of Rosa Parks’ subsequent life, and bringing it up to 2009 and Obama’s presidency was particularly poignant in light of the words and deeds witnessed in America over the last few days.
But now that I reflect on the episode, I do feel that the notional villain was a bit lacklustre. I say notional, as I agree with the insight expressed upstream that the real villain was racism itself. For that reason, I wonder if the portrayal of Krasko should have been of someone who was not simply older but, in a sense, ancient. Something (racism) represented by someone (an older, ancient, Krasko) that has infected humanity through time.
But still, what a great episode.
-
AuthorPosts
