Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
8 June 2017 at 21:37 #58748
@frobisher
That is a pretty good theory! I particularly like the idea that he will choose to die and then in the Christmas special he will choose to live. I wonder if it will be more It’s a Wonderful Life that A Christmas Carol, though, as Moffat has done A Christmas Carol quite explicitly in a previous Christmas special. So, rather than the ghosts of past, present and future, I wonder if it might be more a case of the angel from It’s a Wonderful Life, who could be….the first Doctor?In terms of what he fails at (or falls) and based on what Moffat has said, I am wondering if it is Missy who actually dies because of his failure, or dies saving him? If so, then might it be possible that when he regenerates in the Christmas special he does so (out of commitment his best friend) in the form of Missy, but who now has the the goodness of the Doctor?
Well, yes, I only came up with that theory to shoe-horn Michelle Gomez into becoming the new Doctor. But we can all dream, can’t we?
8 June 2017 at 16:54 #58736@pedant, @missrori, @nick, @thane15, @jimthefish, @craig, et al,
Well, that’s good to know.And I wonder if this might be an appropriate point to pull back from the increasing tendency of late to refer to what is being said on other Who-related sites?
The original brief of this site was to provide a safe-haven from other places, as a home where Who enthusiasts could theorize, bonkerise and discuss. Existing in a pocket universe has been one of the principle strengths of this site. Personally, I am totally disinterested in what the rumours and scuttlebutt on other sites are, and much more interested in the erudite, civilized, and often wonderfully bonkers discussion that takes place here, unaffected and unsullied by other places.
Just a personal preference.
7 June 2017 at 21:51 #58694I could have seen Moff do it (but he didn’t)
If I am not mistaken didn’t Moffat do exactly that at the beginning of S5?
Not disagreeing with your general point about the handover to Chibnall, though. In the Hay festival video that @wolfweed posted above, Moffat explicitly makes the point that he and Chibnall have been working on the handover together. (Which resolved a question I asked about that a few days ago.)
As for me, I am still hopeful that Michelle Gomez will somehow become the Doctor! Not that it will happen of course…
7 June 2017 at 16:26 #58687@pedant
Well, yes, that was a bit depressing. If true, it would seem to re-affirm my belief that real life is so often less appealing that bonkerising about the fictional world.7 June 2017 at 03:42 #58674@pedant, @thane15, @brewski, @wolfweed, @missrori, @whisht, @et al,
Peter Capaldi regenerates as Michelle Gomez…that is too brilliant for words!
She would be fabulous. She would be a female Doctor that, as an actress, we know the audience already relates to (well, the civilized section of the audience, anyway). She would play into the “is she good? is she bad?” dimension of the Doctor that is always there. She would be funny! She can run down corridors! And she can certainly command authority. And…she captures that hint about her relationship to the Doctor that was there from the very first mention of the Master by the third Doctor: “You could almost say we were at school together.”
This has to be!
6 June 2017 at 19:33 #58640I wonder if Moffat has been in discussion with Chibnall about the transfer? Would it be likely that he is setting the stage in some way for the next iteration of the Doctor and the show? The reason I ask is that Moffat does like to push the envelop when it comes to settled assumptions about what we expect of a character and a show. Look at the end of Sherlock, for example. But on the other hand, he cannot change our expectations of the Doctor too much, as it would hamper Chibnall.
What is so good about Moffat is that, even at this late stage, we have little idea of what is in store for the final two parter, and the conclusion to Capaldi’s run. I don’t know exactly why, but I have a feeling that we might be left with a tragic end for this Doctor. Not just a sad end, or a wistful end, but a tragic end. He enterered the scene unsure of who he was, and he has lost a lot, including River and even his memories of Clara.
6 June 2017 at 03:25 #58603@nerys
That Star Trek episode was from series 2. It was called “By any other Name”. I would have been 15 when I saw it, and that act, of the young woman being reduced to a cube of chalk and then crushed in his hand, had a huge impact on me. I was devastated. I watched it again only recently, and, 50 years later, I was still devastated. Even now, I cannot find the words to express how appalling the destruction of a human life seemed to me in that scene.And yet, unlike you, I am not sure it would have been worse had the violence been more graphic and realistic. For me, it was the act of turning her into a cube of chalk, which, thinking back with the benefit of a language of reasoning that I am sure I lacked back then, robbed her of any agency. That, for me, made her subsequent death so appalling.
So, am I saying that the makers of TV shows for children have a respnsibility to those children? Well, yes, I suppose I am. And that is why I feel rather uneasy about the Doctor manipulating Bill into shooting him and and then having the Doctor laugh about it back at Bill. That just didn’t seem right. At all.
5 June 2017 at 20:55 #58596Just heard the Peter Wallis, the voice of Wallace, from Wallace and Gromit, and, of course, Cleggy, in Last of the Summer Wine, has died.
On the scale of how much happiness a person can bring to people, it is hard to match his contribution.
RIP.
5 June 2017 at 18:40 #58587@constance
Welcome. And a great post.it just felt so overtly cruel
Yes, I agree. Which leads me on to @brewski:
A brilliant theory! Which would explain a lot about the downright weirdness of the Doctor at the moment.
5 June 2017 at 17:59 #58581@thane15
Puro, running with my idea about the three Monk episodes viewed as a visualization of Bill’s 3,000 word essay, I think that captures my problems with the whole Monk storyline.If you imagine three undergraduates sitting down in the coffee shop talking over how they might approach doing an essay on free will, and they come up with the idea of a collaborative essay, built around the structure of an allegorical approach involving an alien invasion. Each one will write a different part of the essay. But when they reconvene and look at the resulting collaborative essay, even they realise that there are inconsistencies, and narrative questions that have no easy answers, and that while they have tried really hard to address the philosophical questions of free will, the structure they have used–the allegory of an alien invasion–hasn’t really worked out the way they thought it might.
That is sort of how I responded to the Monk three-parter.
5 June 2017 at 16:05 #58573After battling for (seemingly) hours with various internet locations (thanks for the suggestion @serahni but the geo-lock put the kibosh on that) and finally iTunes, managed to see it, and (as a good citizen consumer) paid to see the remaining episodes.
By and large, agree with @jimthefish on this one, and even those determined to see it in a really positive light had their reservations, and agree with all those reservations so no need, I think, to re-hash them here.
Rather, I want to offer an alternative (albeit, somewhat loopy) reading: I think you can read the episode (and perhaps all three Monk stories) through the lens of Bill’s 3,000 word essay on free will. Let’s imagine that, using the format of an allegory about an alien invasion, Bill’s essay is a reflection on the question and problem of free will.
Will the Doctor grade it A+ or C-?
Next week: Ice Warriors! Hurrah!
5 June 2017 at 05:51 #58553Finally saw it. Well, my reflections on the episode (on the package deal of all the Monk episodes, actually) require a bit more thought, but let me say this before I forget it:
Allowing anyone except SM to write Missy was a big mistake! With Moffat’s dialogue in a Moffat story, Missy is incandescent. Here, she was strangely low wattage, by comparison.
3 June 2017 at 21:06 #58436Just noticed that bbc iplayer now expects you to sign in. Am assuming it is a way of telling the difference between someone with a tv licence and someone without. Is this a way of stopping naughty viewers in other countries, like, oh…Canada, for instance, with a vpn from viewing?
3 June 2017 at 06:43 #58399Wow! You’re back! What good news!
1 June 2017 at 22:31 #58363As we all nervously await the announcement of the new Doctor, there is the usual dismay when names are mentioned: “”Oh, nobody could replace Peter Capaldi…” or “Tom Baker was The Doctor…” or… (fill in the blank space) was the best Doctor.
I was reminded of this when I saw the trailer for Kenneth Branagh’s new interpretation of “Murder on the Orient Express” which went online today. Already the comments are out there, along the lines of “after David Suchet, why bother?” or “Albert Finney was the best Poirot”. And so on.
But, like the Doctor, there are some popular culture characters that are so embedded in our cultural DNA that they will always remain constant, even if the actors and the interpretations change. The Doctor is like that, so is James Bond, as so is Hercule Poirot.
And the fact that Branagh can still stand upright while carrying the weight of those moustaches is a feat in itself!
31 May 2017 at 22:37 #58328Well, I too saw it on the Wikipedia page before it was taken down, and it is tantalizing. Gabriel Byrne makes sense in the role. But I’m not sure I believe it. So far, by my reckoning, the following theories have been floating around concerning the Christmas special:
That it will feature the First Doctor, played by David Bradley
That it will feature an appearance by Clara (and maybe Me) in the diner Tardis
That it will feature the Time Lords
That it will involve the First and the Twelth working together to recover GallifreyAnd now, that it will also involve the First version of the Master.
This seems like an awful lot to do justice to in the space of one Christmas special. I mean, why not throw in the Rani and the Meddling Monk as well so there is a full complement of Renegade Time Lords?
I’m not saying that it won’t happen (because Moffat is the one person who might be able juggle all those balls in the air at once), but it does seem like a rather crowded special.
31 May 2017 at 02:54 #58310@wolfweed
That’s very sad. Sometimes, continuing to work helps you cope, and sometimes (often the same time), your responsibilities mean that you have to persevere regardless. The loss of a parent, particularly if they are elderly, in my experience, whilst difficult at the time, can be partially reconciled by the knowledge that “they had a good innings” (trite as that phrase may sound). But the real impact (again, only in my experience) comes later, at the most unexpected moments.30 May 2017 at 04:26 #58242@missrori
Yes, I think I agree with everything you say about Bill’s actions and responses and motivations (as she is written) in this episode. But, as you say, there is next week. I have high hopes that we well all collectively gasp in adoration about how it all comes together.29 May 2017 at 19:08 #58223@fatmaninabox
If your sofa is anything like the Blenkinsop sofa, you must be covered in cat hair and biscuit bits. Welcome back!29 May 2017 at 00:04 #58191@steffstaff
Very funny running commentary!But in its defence, when you think about every episode of Who from 1963 on, they would all look silly with a running commentary; because, well, in a sense they are silly, but in a wonderful way. Just like “Wind in the Willows” or “Wallace and Gromit” are silly in a wonderful way. Whereas a movie like “Plan 9 from Outer Space”, for example, is silly in a really bad way.
28 May 2017 at 17:31 #58163So, in the refreshing morning air wafting off the Pacfic coast of Canada, do I think my initial response was a bit harsh? Umm…nope.
Bobby Ewing. Obviously there is a big difference between “it was all a dream” and “it was all a simulation” and the latter is a cool idea (actually, the former can be a cool idea if done well). But my intent in mentioning Bobby Ewing was to make the point that it wasn’t done well. Why? Because as we entered the second episode it was dropped like a hot potato. Think about it. At the end of the ‘extremis’ we got a ‘next week’ clip (safe to talk about it now as we have seen the subsequent episode) and in that clip we saw that the Monks were still there. But…when we got to said episode, the whole simulation idea had been jettisoned. The only reference to it was the scene between Bill and Penny (the repeat comic relief scene of the date-gone-wrong). The more I think about the more I feel that they could have done ‘The Pyramid…’ with a completely different set of aliens. In a sense it felt like two different stories that were blended late in the day.
Of course, there might be some gigantic payoff next week, but I suspect that the Monks might not go down in Who history as particularly memorable.
Some good ideas above on ‘why a pyramid?’ But personally I am still trying to work that one out. When the pilots emerge, and then the submarine sailors emerge, I was immediately reminded of the WW11 fighter pilots emerging from the spaceship at the end of ‘Close Encounters…’ not sure if it was intentional but that bit I sort of liked, as it seemed an example of a sort of shared sci-fi language that we all tend to have these days.
28 May 2017 at 02:47 #58126Well, all the episodes in this series have been utterly brilliant. Until, that is, we got to the Monk three-parter. Last week was, well, the Dan Brown plot; the secret book hidden in the Vatican that might lead to the end of the world. Along with Bobby Ewing walking out of the shower at the end.
OK, bear with me, because you know how much I love this show.
This week we have cast aside the whole simulation thing and instead we have the world teetering on the brink of WWIII, the sudden appearance of a pyramid (and why a pyramid exactly?) and the monks demanding submission for the ‘right’ reason, which turns out to be love. Now, it seems to me that this is for the sole purpose of having Bill submit the entire Earth to alien subjugation because of her love for the Doctor.
Well….if that act had been performed by Clara, who had been with the Doctor for so long that we could accept her decision to sacrifice the Earth in order to save the Doctor, but Bill has only known the Doctor for a few weeks. Her actions just didn’t ring true for me.
And then there was Penny. In both episodes we get a humorous date-gone-wrong episode, first with the Pope bursting in, and now with the Secretary General of the United Nations. I mean…
Inevitably, I am comparing this multi-episode story to one like the Zygon one. Where there was a real sense of threat. Who was real? Was Clara real? Was Kate Lethbridge-Stuart real? And there were consequences. People we cared about died. I haven’felt any of that with this so far. Or the Silurian 2-parter with Matt Smith. “You have to be better than this”. The Doctor’s anger in that was palpable. And there was a sense of real consequences when the Doctor insists that both sides negotiate. There was a real sense of consequences involved. Here, the leaders of the three biggest armies shake hands. Yeah, ok…
I just felt that they have been throwing everything but the kitchen sink at this, without any any real sense of consequences emerging.
Or maybe it was the slightly stale cake I had with tea today didn’t agree with me. Always possible.
27 May 2017 at 17:23 #58082It was here
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/06/john-cooper-clarke-poetry-bard-salford
So which way would you vote?
It’s a tough call. I wouldn’t recommend any of them. I suppose if I had to I would vote Labour but only out of blind class hatred, nothing else. That’s what keeps these bastards coming back. To be honest, the only one whose language I even remotely understand is Nige [Farage]. Shoot me down in flames. Everyone else: they talk about nothing that seems to matter.I suppose you could interpret that all sorts of ways. Personally, I still find it a bit troubling.
27 May 2017 at 16:05 #58077@nick, @thane15, @pedant, @cathannabel,
I, too, was taken with John Cooper Clarke way back when, and then I read an interview with him a year or so ago where he claimed that Nigel Farage was saying the most sensible things in British politics. Clarke, Morrissey–I suspect that there was something about the 1980s that, in retrospect, was fundamentally problematic.
“Counter culture” doesn’t necessarily translate into “admirable”.
26 May 2017 at 20:21 #5805626 May 2017 at 07:05 #5804426 May 2017 at 02:17 #58033@arbutus
It is currently available for free on the CBC website. I was just watching it.24 May 2017 at 21:28 #58001Congratulations! I raise a glass to you!
<sound of glasses clinking across the internet>
23 May 2017 at 00:20 #57887Brilliant! But one of the Doctors would have to be Olivia Colman. After all, as she said The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot: “I’m usually in everything.”
22 May 2017 at 21:33 #57881You know, I sort hope that scenario doesn’t eventuate, as it really would be too close a version of the Star Trek Next Generation episode ‘Ship in a Bottle’, where Picard outwits Moriarty be re-programming the holodeck to convince Moriarty he is in the real world when in fact he is still on the holodeck:
22 May 2017 at 19:23 #57875Indeed, running with my David Bradley as The First Doctor Christmas special (sorry @missrori, I just cannot help myself); imagine further that they bring back the entire original cast playing the Doctor, Susan, Ian and Barbara from A Matter of Space and Time, and, somehow, manage to include William Russell as the elderly Ian Chesterton.
In fact, there isn’t a dry eye in the Blenkinsop household as I type this…
22 May 2017 at 18:38 #57873Since there has been talk on the web of David Bradley reprising the Hartnell Doctor, I think that has been interpreted as a possible appearance in the final two-parter. But…since we are also told that this regeneration will be different, and the clips have implied that it will take place before the Christmas special, what implication might that have for the Christmas special? How could Capadi be in it if he has already regenerated?
Well, what if Capaldi isn’t in it? What if Moffat’s departing trick is to make the Christmas special a one-off starring David Bradley as the first Doctor? My dream story would be for the Hartnell Doctor to make good on his promise to Susan to “come back”. Imagine. A Christmas special that went to the heart of the history of the show, that reprises the first Doctor and Susan. Where he “comes back” to his grand-daughter on Christmas.
There wouldn’t be a dry eye in the house.
22 May 2017 at 17:20 #57868Well, after the mind clarifying effects of caffeine, I suppose that might be a step too far, if only for the notion that it might be seen as turning the family-friendly show into the study of a schizophrenic!
I also realise that what probably set me thinking about it was reading (before coffee, always a bad move) the reviews of the first episode of the new Twin Peaks, with…oh, spoilers!
22 May 2017 at 16:26 #57866Was reading the excellent posts above and, slowly, an idea started to bubble up. I was thinking about the flashback structure of the episode, about the ending outside the vault, about the Doctor’s words to Missy as he leans against the vault. And then I was thinking about the claim we have heard that this regeneration will be like no other, and also about the character arc of the Capaldi Doctor, which began with his question to Clara: “Am I a good man?”
Could…and I realise this is going to sound far-fetched…could the Doctor and the Master/Missy be…the same person? Often co-existing, fighting and and yet recognizing their indelible bond of friendship? Wasn’t it the third Doctor who said, of the Master: “He used to be a friend of mine once. A very good friend. In fact, you might almost say we were at school together”. And then (in the gap between the Simm Doctor and Missy) there was Toby Jones’ portrayal of The Dream Lord, where it is very much implied that he is a dark aspect of the Doctor.
How any of this might play out in the regeneration, I have no idea, but I do believe Moffat is going to depart Who doing something extraordinary, so…
But this is one of those ideas that comes before the first cup of morning coffee. Perhaps after coffee sanity might reign.
22 May 2017 at 03:38 #57813@tardigrade
I was trying to think of a way of expanding on my earlier luke-warm response to the episode; then I read your post above, which says everything I was thinking, although my thoughts were far more inchoate than what you successfully articulate.I realise I was asking those sort of questions you point out while I was watching it. Which is not what you are supposed to be doing.
I also think, as I said upstream, that I really felt “I’ve been here before” with regards to Moffat’s tropes and puzzles. Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that per se. Ingmar Bergman probably made the same movie over and over and they were all brilliant. Agatha Christie used the same plot devices over and over, and they were always enjoyable. So why am I complaining? Perhaps my point is that there is an intensity to the TV viewing experience that is slightly different to watching Ingmar Bergman movies or reading Agatha Christie novels that throws the similarities of tropes and plot devices into sharp relief.
But, hell, repetitious Moffat is still a million times better than original offerings of most other people. So bring on next week!
21 May 2017 at 04:20 #57749Have not read any posts yet and never venture into the toxic waters of the Guardian BTL, but, I have to confess, I am not sure I was totally blown away by this. There was, for me, a strange sense of Moffat deja vu. The aliens reminded me quite a lot of the Silence. With the Silence, you couldn’t remember them, with these aliens you couldn’t remember yourself (or, at least, that you didn’t really exist). Obviously, I need a second viewing, still…
I don’t know how many people remember the Star Trek Next Generation episode “Ship in a Bottle” (I think I posted the final scene on the TV shows thread ages ago) but I actually think they did the concept, well, perhaps better.
Strangely enough, and given my previous uncertainty about the character, I actually felt the strongest part of the episode was Nardole.
Now off to read your, inevitably, far more insightful reflections on the episode.
19 May 2017 at 22:36 #57669Not sure if this has been posted yet:
17 May 2017 at 03:53 #57575The Vault.
All the theories expressed so far are really good (except, perhaps, for my early theory that it was Chris Chibnall in the vault).
But, let’s work on the premise that Moffat will pull off something quite extraordinary. Now, he will do it in a way that is instantly relatable to recent viewers but will also involve call-backs for older fans who remember BG Who. But he will do it in that order.
For this reason, and although it is a great theory, I don’t think it will be the Valeyard. The dedicated (and ageing) fans know who that is, but for the (sizeable) audience who has only tuned in recently, they will be scratching their heads.
It could (and might) be Missy, but that seems (for me, anyway) a bit too underwhelming.
Now, we have been told by the powers that be (Moffat) that we will see inside the vault next week. But does that mean we will see the occupant of the vault?
Personally, I hope not. I want a really big reveal later on. And I mean a really big reveal, like the Hartnell Doctor, or Susan. Or both.
But somehow, Moffat always manages to confound us all.
And that is why I will miss him.
15 May 2017 at 22:19 #5754015 May 2017 at 03:30 #57497OK, I realise I probably have too much time on my hands, but:
Is Russel Tovey (who played Midshipman Frame in ‘The End of Time-part 2’, and in ‘Voyage of the Damned’ and huge amounts of other stuff including the Sherlock episode ‘The Hound of Baskerville’) related to Roberta Tovey (who played Susan in the two Cushing Dr Who Movies) who herself is the daughter of George Tovey, who played Ernie Clements in the 1975 Who story ‘Pyramids of Mars-part 2’?
Well, I did tell you I had too much time on my hands…
15 May 2017 at 02:16 #5749514 May 2017 at 19:31 #57473More random (and probably incoherent) thoughts on the vault, the regeneration, and Moffat’s farewell.
The idea that Moffat will employ the bootstrap paradox keeps nagging at me. For those of you who remember Babylon 5, there was recurring reference to the legendary Minbari leader Valen, who, a thousand years before, defeated the Shadows and was “a Minbari not born of Minbari”. It was ultimately revealed that the human Commander of Babylon 5, Jeffrey Sinclair, had travelled back in time and been reborn as the Minbari, Valen.
Could there be something similar at play here? Could Moffat somehow tie the centrality of Earth to the show, the references to the half-human lineage of the 8th Doctor, hell, maybe even the Cushing Doctor(!) into the resolution of what’s in the vault, the Capaldi Doctor’s regeneration, and Moffat’s farewell to the show?
Well, perhaps not. But I don’t believe Moffat will hang up his hat without pulling off something quite audacious.
14 May 2017 at 18:12 #57466We need to reconcile Nardole’s statement in this episode about “when that door opens” with the knowledge that the Doctor has been into the vault with Chinese food in the previous episode, and the knowledge that he has been guarding the vault for 50 years or more.
This leads me to speculate that what(who)ever is in the vault has been growing and the vault will only open when the vault needs to open.
14 May 2017 at 03:33 #57428Really enjoyable episode. Reminded me of John Carpenter’s “They Live” only in the sense of the politics. When you think about it, “Who” has, since 1963, been not a million miles from the secular, rational, cosmopolitan (and therefore left-wing) position of this episode.
The vault…well, I am not sure of the logistics, but, with the bootstrap paradox in mind, could it be the first Doctor, who comes into being because of the Capaldi Doctor? I am sure that is wrong, but for a nano second it seemed appealing.
13 May 2017 at 04:17 #57375@janetteb
While it was grim, the first season of Fortitude was pretty great. Brilliant actors, and a plot that was hypnotic. I recommend it.13 May 2017 at 04:01 #57372Damn! Seemingly hours (or at least the time spent between one glass of shiraz and the next), spent composing a post, and then it disappears!
Anyway..
@wolfweed, have been reading the same, and also about Sacha Dhawan. Given the choice between LT and SD, I would go with the latter. His small role in a recent Sherlock as the embittered assassin shows he has real steel, which the Doctor needs, but Luke Treadway, as appealing as he is (Fortitude) comes across (to me) as a loveable puppy dog, which is not how I think of the Doctor.
Now…off to the third glass of shiraz…
13 May 2017 at 03:41 #57371@winston
I really like that theory! In spite of himself, he feels he owes a lot to the Master…and at this point Missy is more unpredictable. Yes, all that makes sense!11 May 2017 at 03:47 #57339@thane15
Puro, I have always believed that River and the Doctor had a baby:
Who that baby was, is another question.
9 May 2017 at 22:29 #57324I highly recommend the story upon which “Arrival” is based. “story of your life” by Ted Chiang. Can probably be found for free on the web. Only about 50 pages long. A brilliant science fiction story. They had to change it a bit for the movie, and perhaps the brilliance of the story’s construction doesn’t work as well on screen, but I agree that he is a talented filmmaker. Apparently, he may be going to make “Dune” as well.
9 May 2017 at 21:24 #57318@craig
Of course I agree with everything you say. And I will be watching it for all your reasons. It is just that there was something left unknowable about the original (the 1982 version, not the Director’s cuts) that I hope they do not provide answers to. I remember great conversations in the share house I was in at the time (with wood lice as well, actually) and we discussed whether Deckard was himself a replicant. And the beauty of the movie was that it was mysterious on a number of levels. I am all in favour of retaining the mystery.A bit like the original Alien. What was that gigantic creature seemingly welded into the seat in the spaceship that they discovered? It was the mystery of not knowing that added to the grandeur of the movie. I don’t really want a sequel or prequel that explains it all. Prometheus tried to explain it, and it lessened its impact. Now we are promised even more explanations in Covenant that the alien isn’t even alien. Sometimes, less is more.
-
AuthorPosts
