Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
26 February 2017 at 06:00 #55652
@mudlark. Like @winston, I wish you well on your new project. I suspect that what we all three have in common is reaching an age where previous academic (or other) employment no longer provides the opportunity for such scholarly pursuits, and they have to be achieved by more circuitous routes. I am starting a new (historical/legal) project under similar limitations, but if that is the background you are used to, it is also the thing that keeps you going.
I suppose this is a topic more suited to The Molvodarium, so I should say something more Who-related. And it is that I am strangely keen for the new Chibnall series, on the assumption that it will provide a whole new take on Who. My preference would be a return to the beginning–the focus on science and history that they did with Hartnell. That seems strangely relevant in a world of alternative facts.
Yet perhaps even that comment should have been “On the Sofa”. Oh dear, still on the wrong thread…
22 February 2017 at 19:28 #55635Rummaged through the DVD collection last night and watched an old favourite, “Frankenstein Unbound”, directed by Roger Corman and starring John Hurt.
In the story Hurt plays a scientist from the 21st century whose experiments accidentally open up a rift in time where he is transported (along with his car!) back to 1817 in Switzerland where he meets Frankenstein’s monster. Trust me, it is much better than that summary probably made it sound!
It was only on re-watching it that I realized it’s resonance with both the time travel paradoxes and ethical issues of Who (when Who is being thoughtful) and the philosophical issues of the new version of Battlestar Galactica (which will become clear if you watch the movie). I recommend you do. It is an enjoyable guilty pleasure. Here is a clip (and apologies for the fact that the dialogue is out of sync–but in a funny way that plays into the themes of the movie).
22 February 2017 at 19:10 #55634Rummaged through the DVD collection last night and found an old favourite, “Frankenstein Unbound”, directed by Roger Cormam and starring John Hurt.
The story concerns Hurt as a scientist from the 21st century whose experiments take him (and his car!) back in time to 1817 in Switzerland where he meets Frankenstein’s monster. Trust me, it really is much better than that summary made it sound.
It was only on re-watching that I realized it’s resonance with both the time travel paradoxes of Who (when Who is being thoughtful) and the philosophical issues of the new Battlestar Galactica (which will only become clear if you watch the movie). I recommend you do. It is an enjoyable guilty pleasure. Here is a clip (and apologies for the fact that the dialogue is out of sync; but in a funny way that plays into the themes it deals with).
22 February 2017 at 03:08 #55627@thane15
It does not matter whether puro remembered the quote from The West Wing correctly, because what she said is 100% correct.
As an expat, there are things I am deeply ashamed of about Australia (Manus Island, the legacy of the White Australia Policy, which has become part of our collective DNA and has never really gone away–did I mention Manus Island?) but there is also much of which I am enormously proud (the history of social egalitarianism, the self-deprecating sense of humour, the institution of compulsory voting). But what is happening now (and happening very quickly) requires…resistance.
How we express that depends on the circumstances, but, as someone who was born in the 1950s, I have never seen anything quite as bad (for political cultures like the one I grew up in) as I am seeing at present.
Perhaps that is because I now live so close to the US border, but I think not.
@thane15, please say hi to puro for me.
11 February 2017 at 21:24 #55520@theconsultingdoctor Well, if we read The Final Problem as it was presented to us (and I understand your hesitancy on that score) then we know that Sherlock has repressed the memory of Eurus, and that when Mycroft confronts him with the reality of Eurus he slowly starts to remember again. So, Eurus was there in his mind all along, but deeply repressed.
Now, given that TAB was a dream of Sherlock’s, where elements of Sherlock’s life (eg, Moriarty) kept intruding on the dream, then I would say that it can be read that it was Sherlock who (deep down) knew that Mycroft kept an eye on his mad sibling. It is Sherlock’s dream and he puts the words in Mary’s mouth in the dream.
Of course, that reading does assume that The Final Problem was intended to be read the way it was presented.
11 February 2017 at 20:56 #55518@phaseshift Welcome back! Sorry to hear about your problematic 2016, but it is great to read your, as ever, excellent reflections again.
And thank you for your praise, although I confess that I had forgotten all about my catching the gender-neutral references to the sibling in The Abominable Bride. So much so that I had to go back and re-watch the last third, but, sure enough there it was. And on re-viewing it, it is rather leading. And apologies to @theconsultingdoctor, for you had (back on TAB thread) asked me where the reference to the sibling was in the episode, and I failed to reply. Well, after just re-watching, it was in the ruined abbey, where Sherlock, John and Mary meet up. Mary reveals that she is working on behalf of Mycroft. John asks her: “You’re working for Mycroft now?” and Mary replies:
“He likes to keep an eye on his mad sibling.”
Well, in light of The Final Problem, that statement is really quite interesting. Is it Sherlock who is mad? Then why not say: “his mad brother”? Or is there a reason why Mycroft stays in the Diogenes Club rather than go on adventures to solve crimes and sends Mary instead? Could it be that:
“He likes to keep an eye on his mad sibling”?
31 January 2017 at 16:19 #55331Hurrah! Time to go to the shops and make sure we have the ingredients for home-baked jammy dodgers ready for April 15.
31 January 2017 at 05:39 #55318I have been reading through your posts over the last few years. Brilliant. It really is great to have you back.
31 January 2017 at 00:07 #55307Hello @chickenelly!!
What a long time you have been gone. A “younger model”…well I suppose that that dashes any hope I might have had of applying for the job.
I must say, I am glad there is someone else with street-cred on this forum who thinks as you do about the last Christmas special. I was rather hesitant about expressing my doubts (which were very much in the minority) at the time. But, yes…
29 January 2017 at 19:39 #55270Well, it’s been a pretty lean time for new Doctor Who to discuss over the last few months, so when some new writing by Moffat and Gatiss comes along…
And there has probably been more discussion of the US election on the Maldovarium thread than there has been of Sherlock. I see the Forum as a broad church that includes posts on music, and all sorts of stuff in the pub, and, while it’s around and Doctor Who isn’t, Sherlock.
And like all of us, I too am impatient for the return of Doctor Who.
29 January 2017 at 17:07 #55267OK, have now re-watched The Final Problem, and have decided that…the story Gatiss and Moffat show is the story they intend us to see. I still think that the theory of @juniperfish and @theconsultingdoctor is a truly great bonkers theory, but if Sherlock the show does come back, I don’t expect it to turn everything we watched in S4 on its head. And, most importantly, I actually really liked The Final Problem.
On first viewing I was so overwhelmed, I was a bit unsure of it all as it seemed, as I said before, as if the show was on LSD. But on a second viewing, hot on the heels of a second viewing of the two previous episodes, I actually think it is pretty brilliant.
The episode copped a lot of flack for being too outlandish (eg, how did Eurus arrange everything, from the dangling Garridebs to John in the well, and so on?). But, and this might seem obvious, just how realistic was Arthur Conan Doyle’s telling of SH stories. And, perhaps more to the point, how realistic were all the other re-tellings of ACD, such as the Basil Rathbone movies. They all were what they were…stories.
On second viewing, what I think is brilliant about TFP is they way it explicitly acknowledges this; indeed very explicitly by Mary at the end of the episode. As I was watching it last night I was reminded of another play on ACD–the Sherlock Holmes episode in Star Trek:The Next Generation called “Ship in a Bottle” where Data is playing Sherlock Holmes on the holodeck, and Moriarty (a holodeck projection from a previous SH-themed episode) appears with self awareness, and attempts to take over the ship. It is one of my favourite Next Generation episodes, because it does what The Final Problem also does–it consciously plays with the story AS a story. There was so much in The Final Problem that reminded me of the Next Generation SH story, from the Holodeck within the Holodeck, the image of Moriarty on the main view screen pulling the strings to take over the ship, to the brilliant 4th wall ending. I am not saying that Gatiss and Moffat were explicitly referencing that episode (although they might have been) but the two episodes were wonderful examples of writers telling stories about story telling.
It is quite explicit right at the end of The Final Problem, with Mary’s final words, and not a million miles from what they did at the end of the Next Generation episode. So I think that The Final Problem is much more clever (and more me, much more satisfying) than it might have appeared on first viewing.
28 January 2017 at 18:53 #55253More post morning coffee ruminations. After re-watching The Lying Detective with the knowledge of what happens in the Final Problem, I may have been too hasty in accepting the story as presented, because, for instance, if Eurus was locked up since childhood, how did she acquire social graces like “how to be coquettish at a bus stop”?
If this is what happens between the first cup of coffee and the second, I am not sure how many changes of opinion I will have before watching The final Problem for the second time. Perhaps there really is life left in the bonkers theory of @juniperfish and @theconsultingdoctor.
28 January 2017 at 16:46 #55252OK. Reflections on a second viewing in light of the truly bonkers theories of @juniperfish and @theconsultingdoctor.
The beginning. I had somehow not really registered the gun on first viewing, but it definitely plays to the bonkers theory. First the gun, then John lying in bed. Is the tale told in John’s mind at the point of imminent death? Hmmm. But if so, how do I explain the end?
Well, you can reconcile the opening and closing if you see the whole episode as what led to the end of the episode, or the beginning of the episode, if you see what I mean. It seems to me that the key phrase in the episode is “hiding in plain sight”. On the surface, it refers to Culverton Smith, but it also refers to Eurus. Well, it might not be bonkers, that sort of works for me.
So, after second viewings of the first two episodes, I am tending to go back to a reading of both wherein they are telling the story we see are seeing, rather than hiding “in plain sight”(?) an even more complicated interpretation that will turn everything on its head in a hidden fourth episode.
But the bonkers theory of @juniperfish and @theconsultingdoctor is so damn compelling, I am tempted to keep it there at the back of my mind as I go on to a second viewing of The Final Problem.
28 January 2017 at 05:32 #55249Very, very sad news. A truly great actor. So many of his performances meant so much to me.
Malcolm Scrawdyke, Caligula, Winston Smith. The list just goes on and on.
I will always rember him as Bill in “Rocinante”, a totally unique, poetic and radical film about Thatcher’s Britain. Probably forgotten, but not by me.
27 January 2017 at 05:42 #55236The DVD arrived today, so got to watch The Six Thatchers again. The result? Although the tone was…really was…different from S1-3, it worked on its own terms, I thought. It was clear that Gatiss was simply relishing the opportunity to reference both Arthur Conan Doyle and the Basil Rathbone movies, and that was part of the appeal of watching it.
Was it all a dream? Of either Sherlock or John? Of Sherlock perhaps, but of John I think not. What I mean by that is that if it was a dream then the woman on the bus could only make sense if she was in Sherlock’s dream (given that we, or at least I, have seen the subsequent episodes).
OK, I have totally confused myself, so perhaps time for bed.
Tomorrow.. The Lying Detective!
24 January 2017 at 02:57 #55200Who knows, maybe the line “everyone stops counting at three” was actually referring to the episodes!
But as much as I like the sheer audacity of the idea, I’m not really sure. And the reason is the scene with the Holmes parents, watching Eurus and Sherlock playing the violin as the mother smiles and holds Mycroft’s hand. That does have all the signs of a resolution to the story, and to undo that scene might be too cruel.
And yet, a fourth episode is a truly great bonkers theory…!
23 January 2017 at 23:38 #55191After reading your first post I started to wonder if you were right; ie, that there is another episode out there(!) that provides an alternative reading of S4. Now after reading your second post, I am more inclined to believe that something like that might actually be going on.
It’s clear that the whole tone of S4 felt different to S1-S3. It was more hyper. Everything about the show was more hyper. In S1-S3 Sherlock was the hyper ingredient in a world that was basically recognizable. But I confess, looking back on all three episodes, but especially The Final Problem, the world and every character in it seemed seemed less recognizable. As I commented above, my initial response to The Final Problem was that while Sherlock the character was drug-free, it was like Sherlock the show was on LSD.
I know there has been a lot of comment out there on the fact that Lady Smallwood seems to have two first names–Elizabeth and Alicia (and has done since the Magnusson episode). That may be just Gatiss and Moffat throwing out a red herring for the fun of seeing how it would be received. But Lady Smallwood inviting Mycroft around for a drink was different. It did not seem like the Lady Smallwood we knew and it did not seem like the Mycroft we knew. And to take your point about Chekhov’s gun, why introduce that, unless it has an importance that would be revealed later on. But it wasn’t.
Even Mycroft himself did not seem like the same Mycroft–watching old movies full of double entendres and giggling? Being totally rattled by Sherlock’s creepy trick with the clown and fake little girl? Indeed that whole sequence seemed really rather odd–Sherlock had not only managed to disable the security system of the man who ran British security, but he had also manged to doctor the footage of Mycroft’s old movie. That was one of the things I was thinking of when I said that the show itself seemed like it was on LSD.
You may well be right, @juniperfish, it may have been written in such a way that allows them to come back with an alternative reading of S4 that confounds everything we thought we understood about it. One thing that The Final Problem was seemingly about was recovering long buried memories. But was it? Could it have been about “recovering” fake memories? If so, to what end?
At this point, my brain is starting to hurt. I think I need a cup of tea.
19 January 2017 at 03:14 #55160@alexwho That is a really brilliant insight…to both shows.
17 January 2017 at 05:26 #55155Just back from a second viewing and, to me, it improves with a repeat viewing. What seemed on first viewing to be a story told on LSD, seems, on second viewing, to be more of a rather affecting and poignant story about family.
Talking of family, @pedant I really think @ichabod is correct. There is no fourth sibling. His best friend, Trevor, was just that, his best friend, not another brother. Trevor–not really a Holmes name, after all.
What happened to Molly was rather sad, but, well, what can I say except that, narratively speaking, that was her function in the story.
16 January 2017 at 17:31 #55144@pedant Ah…very nice!
16 January 2017 at 17:03 #55142@pedant, Which Rathbone and Bruce film was it?
I need to watch it a second time, but, I remember Sherlock saying “You killed my best friend”, not something else, so I really did stop counting at three.
@ichabod, I am with you on Moriarty. His inclusion (particularly the “tick tock, tick tock” clips) seemed almost gratuitous to me.
But as I say, I need to see it again.
16 January 2017 at 04:46 #55131@pedant
OK, I thought I had a pretty good knowledge of the Basil Rathbone SH, but I give up. What did I miss?16 January 2017 at 01:42 #55129Wow…while Sherlock (the character) was drug-free it was like Sherlock (the show) was on LSD.
12 January 2017 at 03:11 #55084@alexwho I sort of understand your point, even though I think what they have done in the two episodes so far has been brilliant. The video that @craig posted today on the storytelling through editing captures perfectly, I think, what is stunning (and still stunning) about the show. But on the other hand, I agree that there is a sense in which setting us up for big reveals seems to have assumed a greater priority than the story being told in the two recent episodes. Neither episode has reached the Olympian heights of The Abominable Bride (and I know that my assessment is not the same as everyone else’s) but, if anything Gatiss and Moffat have set the bar so damn high that it is perhaps impossible to maintain it at that level indefinitely.
Still, in the spirit of our purpose to come up with theories more insane than what is actually going on, here is a theory about next week: Sherrinford is a code-name used by Mycroft to refer to Moriarty, who is alive and being kept in maximum security by Mycroft. I am probably wrong of course, but coming up with theories only to be proved wrong is part of the fun.
9 January 2017 at 02:53 #55064Crikey…!
OK, I know that rule #1 with Moffat is: Moffat lies. But this took lying to a whole different level. Everyone is lying. About everything. All the time. I think.
And what’s going on with Lady Smallwood?
The ubiquity of the ecliptic seemed simple in comparison to tonight. Cannot wait for next week!
4 January 2017 at 22:34 #55033@mudlark
Yes, I know what you mean. It was a moment of weakness that carried me across the River Styx on that occasion. I must be more resolute.4 January 2017 at 21:54 #55030@craig A brilliantly witty and devastatingly accurate response by Gatiss to a very stupid article. And what the response by the usual Guardian posters? Gatiss is so defensive…Gatiss has lost the plot…Gatiss is “too clever for his own good”. The last one stated quite seriously, I believe.
Well, let me nail my colours to the mast. I am really looking forward to the next two episodes, and to anything more that Gatiss and Moffat have to offer, either jointly or singly, whether it is Sherlock, Doctor Who, a retelling of an MR James ghost story, or another Tintin screenplay.
2 January 2017 at 18:03 #55003It was great to see “Sherlock” back, even if, as @pedant rightly points out, it was “intense”. The show runners told us it was going to be darker this time around and they didn’t exaggerate.
One of the recurring pleasures of the show is how Gatiss and Moffat draw upon previous incarnations of the stories. And not just the Conan Doyle originals. Gatiss, in particular, when he is the main writer of an episode is fond of drawing on the Basil Rathbone SH movies of the 1940s. I am not sure enough people are aware of just how much Gatiss and Moffat draw on, and play with, the whole constellation of SH incarnations in this show.
Last night, for example, owes at least as much to the Basil Rathbone movie “The Pearl of Death” (a very loose retelling of “The Six Napoleans”) as it does to Conan Doyle. Indeed, there is a character in the Basil Rathbone version who is a gigantic killer called The Creeper who crushes his victims and breaks their backs. He wasn’t in The Six Thatchers, of course, but, re-named The Golem, he was in the 2010 Gatiss-penned The Great Game. This is one of the things I love about the show.
Mind you, I am not sure everything worked about last night. A team of four assassins going on jobs together with memory sticks containing all the facts about their compatriots doesn’t seem the best sort of security to me, but then I’m not part of a team of assassins. So who am I to say?
Cannot wait till next week, even though it promises that the main characters will be thoroughly miserable (Holmes newly humbled and Watson both grief-stricken because of his loss and guilty because of his indiscretion). And what are we to make of Mary’s cryptic statement at the end of the credits? Oh yes, looking forward to next week!
30 December 2016 at 18:59 #54956Since it is proving to be so difficult to get onto the site at the moment, I thought I would use the opportunity to upload something. As my reply to @craig‘s excellent clip of “Singing in the Rain” indicated, I seem to have come down with the lurgy. And since misery loves company, I always find relief with the wonderfully funny episode of “Hancock’s Half Hour” where Hancock copes with a cold. So, in case there are any similarly afflicted Whovians out there, this is for you:
30 December 2016 at 18:41 #54955@craig Thanks for posting that wonderful clip from a truly brilliant movie. One tends to forget how incredibly spectacular old Hollywood could be.
It was particularly welcome, as I am in the depths of a really bad winter cold, so seeing this first thing after I emerged from under the blankets cheered me up immensely.
Many thanks.
25 December 2016 at 17:40 #54911Christmas greetings from the lurking Blenkinsops to all those other lurking Whovians. It is a bit parky out here on the western isles (no, not those western isles, but the ones off the coast of western Canada), and as it is not yet 10am, probably a bit early for mulled wine. On the other hand it does provide a perfect excuse to play with the train that is currently running around the base of the Blenkinsop Christmas tree.
No Doctor Who for us today alas, as the Blenkinsop TV technology is experiencing some downtime. But I suppose it means I won’t be distracted with questions like: “Hold on, I thought the Doctor couldn’t go back to Manhattan because Amy and Rory created a fixed point in time…or something?” I suspect it is one of those questions, which, as Mrs Blenkinsop wisely points out “you are just not supposed to ask”.
10 December 2016 at 02:51 #54858OK, this is on the BBC site so I suppose it is coming:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04ksb6n
But, well, I love Doctor Who and all that, but does this trailer seem, well, a bit feeble?
7 December 2016 at 02:35 #54839I was relating your story of toric lenses to Mrs Blenkinsop, as she has a type of astigmatism as well, but she reminded me that her version of it is apparently so peculiar that the toric lenses she used to wear became part of the problem. On the other hand, she looks pretty fabulous in glasses.
I managed to avoid glasses up until about the age of 55, and even now, after 10 years, while the prescription changes, I still wear the same rimless frames, originally purchased because of my unease at wearing glasses. I am always reminded of the scene in “Deadwood” (one of my favourite TV shows) where the irascible Al Swearegan, who thinks he is the toughest guy in town, is trying to read a document with the aid of a huge magnifying glass, and when someone comes into the room and sees him, he growls: “Yes, it’s come to this”.
I hope everything works out well, and the new year promises a crystal clarity.
5 December 2016 at 03:12 #54832@thane15
And I meant the eastern edge of the Pacific.
Oh dear, could it have something to do with the quality of the wine…?
5 December 2016 at 03:09 #54831@thane15
My previous message was, of course, intended for you.
For both of you.
5 December 2016 at 02:47 #54830@puroandson
Just talking to an old friend from the, well, old country, and then saw this recent story about Brisbane on the Guardian.
My memory of living there was coloured by the experience of moving in just a couple of weeks before the last massive flood. I see that nature continues to plague Brisbane.
All the best from the other (western) edge of the Pacific.
20 November 2016 at 02:18 #54778OK. I have loved Doctor Who for the last 50 years, but I have to confess that I thought that trailer was distinctly underwhelming. Was it aiming for comedy? If so…well, Nardole for a start. (Sorry, I just do not see the humour of Nardole as a character.) Was it re-inforcing the idea of the Capaldi only existing (in a quite self-conscious way) as the inhabitant of a “story” but never as the inhabitant of the real world? As @missrori points out (quite brilliantly) on a different thread, he never encounters real historical figures, only story-books figures (Robin Hood, Santa Claus, and now a Superhero).
Have been looking forward to some new Who with huge anticipation, but left in a little trepidation by the trailer. I do so hope I am wrong and it will be wonderous.
17 November 2016 at 05:21 #54747I agree. But on the other hand, this is a rather a special place.
I, too, read about it:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/next-doctor-who-to-be-young-again/
and since it is apparently on the Radio Times as well I suppose it is sort of official. Maybe.Anyway, perhaps this is yet another reason why we should watch another story from Chris Chibnall to get an idea on what the future might hold.
@craig, are you out there somewhere?
14 November 2016 at 03:56 #54733Hello all, I have been gone a while. Stuff happens.
@ichabod, @mudlark, @lisa, Totally agree about Pence. There is something about him that conjures up images of a right-wing Christian theocracy with police state trimmings.
@pedant Yes, you are clearly correct, but you do realise that you are somewhat like a doctor who has exactly the right diagnosis but with, well, zero bedside manner.
@thane15 I wish I had of had your insight, erudition and commitment when I was 14. As I recall, I was mainly focussed on Doctor Who at the time. (And please say hi to your mum.)
Which brings me to my real point. Clearly, we are all on the same side. In many ways, but in one important way. We all get caught up with the wonder of Doctor Who. So, might I suggest, as a way of coping with these, frankly, troubling times, to our Emperor, @craig, that we look forward to the future; that is, the Chris Chibnall future, by continuing with the thread on the Chris Chibnall retrospective with another Chibnall story?
@craig, how about another Chris Chibnall story that we can sink our teeth into, as we await the Christmas episode, and the one really positive future we have to look forward to – more Who!
21 October 2016 at 19:41 #5429412 October 2016 at 17:13 #54191@cathannabel
As I look back on much of my email correspondence these days, I think I am reaching that stage of life where I always blame auto-correct as a way of preserving my self-dignity…(not that it necessarily convinces the recipients of my emails, of course).10 October 2016 at 01:54 #54183@cathannabel. Just caught up with your blog, that @puroandson brought to our attention.
Brilliant piece on cosmopolitanism! I have only dipped into some of your other entries, but plan on going back. Wonderful stuff. It sounds (reads) like you are embracing retirement really well. Something I am having a few challenges with, actually. But reading your blog has already given me a few ideas on that front. Thank you.
8 October 2016 at 01:32 #54158@craig
A regal welcome back to our emperor.I was a trifle concerned that you might have disappeared into e-space, but it is good to know you have returned…the long way round.
8 October 2016 at 00:38 #54151Thanks to @lisa for all the wonderful visual candy!
So, the Christmas special…with Nardole. Hmmm. Just thinking back to “Christmas Carol” and “The Snowmen”, which were reflective, and confronting and even poetic, and which I loved, and some of the other Christmas specials which were wacky…and which I loved, well, perhaps less so.
“Class” does look interesting. Here is a question from a colonial ignorant of recent changes in the English education system. I notice that Coal Hill Secondary School has become Coal Hill Academy. I am sure there is a context for that change, and I would be interested to know if it is likely to have any implications on the dynamics of the show. Is a point being made? Should I read anything into the change?
6 October 2016 at 18:51 #54108Thanks for the link to the Pearl Mackie interview. It still seems like an eternity to the new episodes, and one gratefully grabs at whatever crumbs drop from the table. So, did we find out anything about the character of Bill? Apparently,
She’s funny and geeky and vulnerable. There’s a goofiness to her and a big heart. She gets things wrong, she has a temper.
All sounds very “companion-like”, but also sounds like characteristics that are suited to stories with a humorous flavor, rather than stories that are darker, sadder or more challenging. Combining this with the knowledge that Matt Lucas will be returning as Nardole on a regular basis, I do start to wonder how much space there will be for stories that darker, sadder or more challenging.
I know Chris Chibnall probably feels the need to lighten up after three series of “Broadchurch”, but still.
What a long wait to find out.
2 October 2016 at 17:47 #54085@cathannabel, @puroandson, @janetteb, @ichabod
I can take or leave zombies, unless there is something truly brilliant, like this clip from “Cockneys v. Zombies” with (I think) the final performance of the wonderful Richard Briers:
25 September 2016 at 17:06 #54030@craig, @jimthefish, @ any Timelord out there,
Someone new wants to be my friend. I am sure I am not the only one who has received this attention…
p.s. The Fox Inn is a bit over-full.
24 September 2016 at 05:28 #54011Here is a bit of context to @whisht‘s wonderful post.
The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah band was created by a group of art school students in the 60s, with the premise of satirizing (and simultaneously celebrating) pop music. The principal involved was Vivian Stanshall, an amazing artist and self made eccentric, who produced a wonderful body of work in the style of Edward Lear, Lewis Carroll and Spike Milligan, before a tragic early death. Here is a clip about him
The name of the band was originally the Bonzo Dog/Dada band, but they became tired of explaining what Dada meant.
Clearly, I have a real soft spot for what they represented
22 September 2016 at 17:49 #53994@puroandson The autumnal equinox passed without incident in the Blenkinsop home. The weather, it has to be admitted, is very close to perfect here on the island, and the quality of light as the sun sets on the mountains you can see on the mainland is really rather wonderful. And yet Brisbane in the early spring is also a gorgeous time of the year as I recall. There are, are there not, the spectacular purple and lilac blooms of the jacarandas that come out in October? Are they out even now?
Spring and Autumn. They don’t last long, but they don’t disappoint.
21 September 2016 at 17:44 #53985@theconsultingdoctor
Yes, the comparison between the way the mind palace is written when Sherlock has to decide which way to fall after the shot, and the way it is written when the Doctor needs to escape from the Veil in the castle tower is not only the perfect example of how the mind palace narrative technique is used by Moffat, but also that it is more effective in Sherlock.
As to why this should be so, I wonder if it is because each show is pitched to a slightly different audience in terms of age. It all happens very, very fast in Who, and a similar scene happens, well, very, very slowly in Sherlock! But it’s not just that, it was also that, for me at any rate, the stakes seemed higher in the Sherlock scene, and Sherlock (surprisingly) wasn’t arrogant in the way he used the mind palace to save himself. But in Heaven Sent, the Doctor was (well, for me) just a bit too ‘cavalier’ is the best word I can think of.
Finally, I for one really enjoy your (not incoherent but really very interesting) thoughts on Sherlock.
-
AuthorPosts
