Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
5 November 2015 at 13:35 #46396
Brilliant reflection.
Over here in polite Canada (for the most part anyway) the people recently jettisoned the awful conservative regime in favour of something hopefully more positive.
But at the end of the day, as we used to say, “It doesn’t matter who won the election, the government got in”.
It would be good if Moore’s comic, and the film, were as widely known as Orwell’s 1984, (And it would be good if more people read Orwell, as well!)
5 November 2015 at 13:24 #46395I don’t think she has any ‘new powers’ in her mind prison; it’s just showing tenacity and the AG Who convention of being able to push back when something opens a door between two minds.
Yes, I like that. I can see how it works.
5 November 2015 at 00:02 #46368All good points. Yet there is still something that makes me hesitate. Perhaps because I tend to separate the pre-Claricle Clara from the post-Claricle Clara. And perhaps because if she is bubbling with all these powers, why aren’t they in evidence more often?
I am also still pondering the significance of River’s line about maintaining a mental link with Clara.
4 November 2015 at 21:00 #46356OK, since I do not believe Clara has hitherto shown exceptional mental powers, is this clip suggesting that she may be…a hybrid? Is this what Osgood meant when she refused to answer the Doctor’s question about which one she was…because the creation of the zygon copy means that the original inherits the powers of the zygon, and they are, to all intents and purposes, identical?
4 November 2015 at 19:59 #46353If you see a mistake you want to correct, there is an EDIT link on the right-hand side of your post, next to the number. It stays active for about 4-5 minutes after you post. It has saved me on numerous occasions!
4 November 2015 at 19:28 #46349My recollection was that it was her superior computer skills that her allowed her to hack the Daleks so that they would forget the Doctor, rather than her mental strength. Of course, it’s been a while since I saw “Asylum of the Daleks”.
4 November 2015 at 18:56 #46345@lisa. Thanks for uploading
“I’ll see what I can do.”
So Clara has the ability to mentally force the zygon Clara to reveal her form…
OK, this seems to give Clara powers I was previously unaware of…hmm.
4 November 2015 at 03:09 #46301Sapphire. Now that is really interesting. “Sapphire” was the name of a cutting edge movie about race relations in late 1950s London. The plot revolved around the murder of a young black woman who had been passing herself off as white. It was about both racism and the issue of denying your identity in order to fit in.
The parallels with the themes of this episode are obvious.
4 November 2015 at 01:50 #462963 November 2015 at 22:15 #46286In terms of the political themes this two-parter is embracing–tolerance, respect for diversity, the need for co-existence and the rejection of violence–this is revisiting the similar themes of the Silurean two-parter with Matt Smith.
I have always liked that two-parter, because the issues it dealt with seemed so quintessentially Who. A large part of what I enjoyed about this episode was the engagement with those same themes. That, and the whole “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” element that the Zygons bring with them.
I realise how most of the comments have been about “who is a zygon, who is a human?” questions. In way, I am happy to sit back and wait for Moffat the story-teller to resolve all of that in ways that I haven’t even considered. But what I am really looking forward to is how they are going to articulate the moral and political questions that have have been raised in this episode. Those issues are so big and so important I want them to do it…well…right.
3 November 2015 at 14:57 #46266I seem to be the outlier here. My case against the Doctor being a zygon:
1. When was he duplicated? Before the episode started? Before he meets the zygon leaders/little girls?
2. If the latter, what is the sense in his interaction with the little girls/zygon leaders at that point?
3. He calls himself Doctor Disco before he meets the little girls/zygon leaders. If referring to himself that way is an indicator of his zygon-ness, then we go back to point 2.
4. This is a Doctor who brings a tank and an electric guitar to 12th century England. Why is is calling himself Doctor Disco, or Doctor Funkenstein suddenly out of character?
5. He refers to himself in the third person–yes. But to what end? To alert the humans in the room that he is a zygon? Or is it, perhaps, simply that this is the way that Capaldi’s Doctor talks?
Of course, he may be a zygon, but I do not see that the reasons on offer present a convincing case.
3 November 2015 at 12:27 #46257Is Jac a zygon? To be honest, I have no idea! On the first viewing I assumed she was human and Clara was possibly an evil zygon, on the second viewing I still assumed Jac was human, but Clara might be a pro-treaty zygon. By the third viewing, and in light of the arguments of @jphamlore and others, I began to wonder if everyone was a zygon.
I am resistant, however, to the idea that the Doctor is a zygon. Partly because I cannot see when he would have been replaced, partly because his meeting with the two zygon leaders/little girls in the playground wouldn’t make sense if he was a zygon at that point, and partly because his self-referencing as Doctor Disco seems to me to be in keeping with the Capaldi Doctor’s new persona.
Mind you, as I type this our two household cats are lying asleep at my feet, and I am not at all sure that they might not be zygons!
3 November 2015 at 02:36 #46231@purofilion
“They Live”
This has now been recommended by @craig, @pedant, and @blenkinsopthebrave
https://www.jbhifi.com.au/movies-tv-shows/movies-tv-shows-on-sale/horror/they-live/457287/
Enjoy.
2 November 2015 at 23:08 #46219Well, I suppose he could have been traveling from playground to playground with his glasses on, but, you know, I think he already knew where to find them…
2 November 2015 at 23:04 #46218Before there were Zygons…
OK, here is a clip from the movie that started it all, “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers”
2 November 2015 at 22:53 #46215Absolutely! God, I love that movie!
When he first puts on the sunglasses, and the billboards display the subliminal messages, like “Obey”, “Consume”, “Don’t Think”, and all the rich people are revealed to be aliens and the poor are human–yes, I like my political satire to be both humourous and in-your-face!
But yes, the shades are made for this. Come to think of it, can his shades reveal distinguish a zygon from a human…?
2 November 2015 at 21:50 #46207Given the Zygon 2-parter we are watching, I thought I would post the intro to one of my favorite TV shows of the 1960s: “The Invaders”, about aliens who look like humans and are trying to take over the world. It was sci-fi paranoia at its best!
2 November 2015 at 21:27 #46205@lisa –well, that’s a relief!
On the zygon front, I am not sure who was human and who was zygon in the scene, just that it could have played out in different ways.
I am also not sure if zygon Clara/Bonnie really is an evil younger zygon, or an elite middle-aged zygon, or even Clara pretending to be a zygon!
Back in the 1960s in the TV show “The Invaders”, about aliens who can look and sound human (same principle of paranoia that we have here–and an excellent show and available on DVD), the aliens could be spotted because they could not straighten out the little finger on their hands. But then the show-runners dropped that, meaning it was impossible to tell who was human and who was alien. It made for brilliant paranoia!
2 November 2015 at 20:06 #46197Bummer if its only 1-6 ! I haven’t pulled up the Amazon yet.
I have given this a lot of thought, but I have no idea what you are referring to! Was this intended for someone else perhaps?
Re: zygon Clara, there is nothing in the scene as shown that confirms she let the UNIT team die. It could have played out very differently. And there is nothing to confirm the UNIT soldiers are not zygons. The entire scene and everyone in it might have been zygon v. zygon.
2 November 2015 at 18:35 #46188the only way to preserve the political message is to have what appear to be incompetent elites actually be competent. The adult Zygon leaders claimed they had a plan to control the situation. I am assuming they do.
Yes, I had forgotten your earlier post saying that. Excellent point.
2 November 2015 at 18:26 #46187Well, after a re-watch, I am, predictably, still confused. In the scene in question, we do see the aftermath–a couple of glowing furry indicators of death and a couple of zygons walking off, as zygon Clara/Bonnie stares meaningfully at Clara-in-pod. But what have we seen? Here is one alternate reading of the scene:
We know that there are zygon factions–including one that wants to break the truce and take the planet and one that wants to keep the peace intact. Clara may well have a zygon duplicate, but why should we assume it is a radicalised anti-human zygon? Perhaps her duplicate is a zygon who wants to maintain the truce, and is as determined to oppose the radicalised zygons as Kate Lethbridge-Stewart is.
If so, then the scene in question, particularly her command to “kill the traitors” plays out in a very different way.
As Colonel Walsh has pointed out, there is no way of telling who is who. The UNIT soldiers that follow Clara and Jac down under the city might be UNIT soldiers, but then again…
I am loving this two-parter even more!
@arbutus. Enjoy the ironing–I really should be doing something as useful myself.
2 November 2015 at 16:29 #46177Still loving this episode–and, in part, because the message was laid on a bit thick (sorry, @drben).
But in terms of story-telling, there is something that has been nagging at me, and makes me wonder if there is something we have all missed–or misinterpreted.
It is when Clara (so we assume) goes back down under the city with Jac and the UNIT reinforcements. Then Clara seems to reveal herself as evil Zygon Clara/Bonnie. And then (and this is the point that has me perplexed) she says “Kill the traitors”. But in what sense are the UNIT soldiers and human Jac traitors? Traitors to who? If she said “kill the enemy” it would have sounded more logical.
My memory of the scene is that after seemingly evil Zygon Clara/Bonnie says this, we hear the sounds of mayhem, but do not see the aftermath of a massacre (I might be wrong, though–I would have to re-watch). We assume that Jac and the soldiers are all killed. But are they? It does seem like a rather brutal end to Jac in particular, whom we have known since “The Day of the Doctor”. Surely her sin of being middle-aged does not warrant a summary dispatch (I, in particular, hope not!). So, could it be that the scene we thought we saw was, in fact something with quite a different resolution?
Damm it! I told Mrs Blenkinsop that I was going to work on something quite different today, but clearly I am going to end up re-watching the episode!
2 November 2015 at 01:40 #46134@purofilion
I am here to put you to out of your misery.
It is not Richard Burton…my goodness! It is Marlon Brando as Superman’s father.
But, we shall keep this secret between ourselves. Oh, hold on…
2 November 2015 at 01:15 #46126@purofilion
Flash Gordon…and Blenkinsop? OK, I am now totally confused…
I am certain I wasn’t in Flash Gordon…or was I?
1 November 2015 at 23:47 #46117Sometimes, when the issue is really important, subtlety is not the point. This episode said all the right things–assuming you agree with @phaseshift‘s impassioned plea before the episode, which I do.
Frankly, just about every popular TV show has a political agenda, and to pretend they don’t is ridiculous. Moreover, to demand that a show like “Doctor Who” (which has always worn its commitment to secularism, tolerance and informed reason on its sleeve from 1963 on) be “non-political” is just a way of saying: “do not support a point of view in opposition to the one we ram down everyone’s throats all the time”.
It is no surprise that the majority of people who post on this site support the position being advanced in this episode–they are the principles that attract us to this site.
Dear me, I am sounding rather serious. Perhaps time for a jammy dodger.
1 November 2015 at 18:02 #46098On second viewing, loving it even more than after the first viewing!
Apart from “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, “They Live”, and “The X Files”, the other influences are “Battlestar Galactica” (the new version, obviously) and, perhaps most importantly, “The Invaders”, the absolutely brilliant TV series from the 1960s with Roy Thinnes. All fabulous shows.
And interestingly, in light of the ramblings of one of the Underbridge family last week, all American shows.
As for arc implications, actually, I do not think there are going to be any with this two-parter. I think it will be self-contained and arc-free. But then, I am usually wrong with my predictions…
1 November 2015 at 15:20 #46089@purofilion
All those months ago, let it be said that I recognised that the Clara on the bike with the lipstick and the non-smile was a Zygon. Let it be read from all the high places and Messiahs be sung! (I want all the muffins and bagels in all the land too)
For you:
1 November 2015 at 13:16 #46079@purofilion
Yes, you have discovered the inspiration for the name! The novel on which the show is based, “N or M?” is one of my favourite Agatha Christie novels and certainly my favourite Tommy and Tuppence story. The book is much, much better than the TV show. You really should try and get a copy. I recommend it enthusiastically.
1 November 2015 at 13:06 #46077Well, that was a cracker of an episode!
Part “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, part “They Live”, and part “The X Files” (and all the best parts!)
I thought it was very interesting that the Doctor actually did not do all that much in the episode; the main action was dominated by UNIT, by by Kate, by Osgood, and by Clara. In fact, there was no sense of a plan being hatched by the Doctor.
Loved the dialogue between the Doctor and Osgood, where she refuses to identify as either human or Zygon.
Next week cannot come soon enough!
31 October 2015 at 16:16 #45970As Mrs Blenkinsop and I do not get to see the show till it is uploaded onto iTunes tomorrow morning, I have been thinking about appropriate Halloween viewing this evening. I think my contender for the scariest show ever would probably be the TV adaptation of M.R. James’s “Whistle and I’ll Come to You”. Not the faithful Jonathan Miller version from 1968, but the 2010 version starring John Hurt.
That is a real behind the sofa experience.
Come to think of it, Mrs Blenkinsop is unlikely to agree, as it was not only terrifying, but horribly sad and cruel. Crikey, I am giving myself the willies just thinking about!
31 October 2015 at 13:33 #45959Let’s not forget “The Flipside of Dominick Hide”
29 October 2015 at 22:37 #45860It is very nice that people seem to have responded to my idea, but…it doesn’t have to turn out that way. Perhaps the point is to come up with bonkers theories which might work, but if they don’t they are still cool as bonkers theories.
Of course, none of these ideas would have been possible without the aid of good Australian Shiraz…
29 October 2015 at 16:37 #45842“Her indoors”…his wife…River.
29 October 2015 at 16:30 #45840As you fortunate people in the UK have the opportunity to view the latest 007 movie, I thought it appropriate to listen to the very best James Bond soundtrack (albeit, in the the movie with the most rubbish Bond). Here is a brilliant orchestral cover version
29 October 2015 at 11:38 #45823@ichabod, @lisa, glad you liked the idea that Alshidr’s role may be to protect Clara from the Doctor’s attempt to save here, thereby allowiing Clara to fulfill her destiny.
I wonder if it might also support my idea, @purofilion, that the Doctor will (for a time at least) travel sans companion, as the loss will hit him hard.
If so, I suspect that the sunglasses will disappear, and the guitar will become a bit more melancholy.
In fact, what might be called for is a visit from “her indoors” to give him a bit of perspective.
28 October 2015 at 21:47 #45762Just looked at my post above and I realise one sentence came out all wrong.
Just mentally delete the first sentence of the second paragraph, and begin that paragraph with “As the Doctor said…”
The offending sentence implies the opposite from what I wanted to say.
Honestly, this is what happens when you try to say something before you have had a glass off wine..
28 October 2015 at 21:14 #45760More thoughts on my idea that Ashildr’s role is not simply to follow (perhaps guard) Clara through her life on Earth, but to be there at the end, to protect her (as a companion) from the Doctor (cannot remember her exact words to the Doctor that suggest this will be her role). I suggested that perhaps Ashildr is to be there at the end because she can do something the Doctor cannot. Well, here is my idea:
She is there to stop the Doctor from letting Clara depart. As the Doctor said in The Girl who Died, “I can do anything”. And that includes breaking the rules, giving life back when it has gone. He does it with Ashildr, but was it the best thing for Ashildr?
Well, I envisage a scenario where Ashildr will be there to stop the Doctor from saving Clara. In other words, to allow Clara to fulfill her destiny.
28 October 2015 at 14:48 #45737I’d really like that, but — it’s kind of — cowardly? I don’t think he could bring himself to leave that task — seeing Clara to her finale — to anyone else.
I can see your point, but I did not mean to imply an either/or scenario. The Doctor could well be there, but perhaps Ashildr might also be there to play a role in Clara’s end/departure that the Doctor cannot play. I haven’t worked this through myself, but while Ashildr and the Doctor might seem similar in that they can both seemingly live forever, they are very different, in that one is is a traveler in space and time, whereas the other is destined (it would seem so far) to live through time in one place only (Earth). I think this had something to do with why the Doctor did not take her onto the TARDIS.
Still thinking…
27 October 2015 at 23:43 #45682@plainolddave
re:the two video clips–yes! Perfect examples.
As for the rest–mostly in agreement, but…you really must watch Matt Smith. I grew up with Hartnell, fell off the wagon with JNT, but was brought back into the fold by Smith.
But you must begin watching Smith in order, from his first appearance, and continue.
27 October 2015 at 22:24 #45679Great idea about Clara as bootstrap. My latest thought is that the Doctor made Ashildr immortal for the precise purpose of following (guarding?) Clara through the her life/lives, and…to be there at the end. In other words to oversee Clara’s end.
There is a sci-fi precedent for this–Arthur C. Clarke’s “Childhood’s End”.
Still thinking this through. Obviously time for a wine to aid the thinking process.
26 October 2015 at 18:57 #45610There are some video clips that never disappoint.
26 October 2015 at 18:22 #45607As to who should be the next companion, I was wondering if Moffat et al had considered not having a companion at all for a while. When I think back to Hartnell (and apologies for the others who have already made this point) the original dynamic of the Doctor and the companions was very different. Then it was the companions who engaged in derring-do, who did the running through caves, who fought off aliens, who saved people. Then, with Troughton, the balance slowly began to change. By the time of Pertwee, the Doctor was becoming the man of action. Now, it is the Doctor who saves people (and companions).
So, could they experiment with a Doctor sans companion? There would be companion-like guest stars, of course, but they would be so within the structure of the story, from week to week.
It might even fit the Doctor in his current, somewhat damaged state. He is sick of losing people. Clara in particular, but he has lost so many companions. As River has commented, he doesn’t like good-byes. Indeed, the 10th season could be The Doctor, front and centre. Perhaps, the arc might be about finding his lost family…
Not sure, just thinking aloud.
26 October 2015 at 11:29 #45548I foresee a book title in the making:
“Hayness Crimes: The Wit and Wisdom of the Troll”
26 October 2015 at 01:59 #45518I fear I am going to come across as a bit of a party pooper, but I think that the Nightmare Child is actually too abstract and unknown for the bulk of the audience. If reference was made to tthe Nightmare Child now, in 2015, I suspect that most of the audience would be perplexed.
Dear me, I do think I am coming across as the party pooper, so perhaps it is time for bed, at least in my corner of wildest Ontario.
26 October 2015 at 01:48 #45517Yes, I am with you–why does everyone think that Ashildr had contact with Missy? Please, to all those people out there, and as Amy used to say all the time: “Explain”
26 October 2015 at 01:38 #45515Perhaps the most brilliant spot ever.
As to what it means, my suspicion is that it was planted by Moffat et al for us (meaning all those who love seeing bonkers theories in the show). To be honest, I don’t think it has a meaning. Why? Because it is too deeply embedded. Moffat only drops hints of what is to come if everyone sees it, and can therefore see the connection in a subsequent episode. But this example requires the sort of bonkers obsession that only bonkers theorists like us can display.
But that is one of the many reasons I love Moffat–he makes the effort to leave treats for obsessives like us.
25 October 2015 at 16:26 #45459Loved it. Yes, I am partial to historical episodes, but that wasn’t the reason I loved it. It was because it was an episode that flirted with (yet avoided) tragedy, dealt with loss and regret and loneliness. It was an episode about damaged people–Ashildr, The Doctor, and in the coda, Clara.
I found it very moving, actually, and the fact that it moved a little slower was part of its strength, as the pace suited the darkness at the heart of the story about three damaged people.
Time for coffee and more thoughts.
24 October 2015 at 20:55 #45385The leaf. I interpreted the leaf as a story she was told by her parents–that her father had been out walking, a leaf fell and distracted him, causing him to almost walk into the traffic, a young girl instinctively grabs him out of harms way, they fall in love, they marry, they have Clara. I have always seen it as simply a sweet tale told to Clara by her parents to capture the serendipity of her existence.
Now, if one wants to go done the road of wondering if the leaf was orchestrated by some force to bring about this chain of events, then that way bonkers theories lie. But I have never seen it that way.
24 October 2015 at 17:02 #45379A K9 movie?!!
Perhaps it was something to do with the fact that I was at university during the Tom Baker years, and his Doctor seemed really cool. But then along comes K9, and, to an undergraduate who thought he was more sophisticated than he actually was, K9 seemed awfully cringeworthy.
Am I remembering correctly that K9 was introduced, in part, to deflect the criticisms of Mary Whitehouse (the Dolorous Umbridge of the 1970s) that Doctor Who was becoming unsuitable for children?
On the other hand, written by Bob Baker, who wrote all the best Wallace and Gromit.
mmmm…
24 October 2015 at 03:03 #45352When I watched the episode, I was struck by Clara’s wording: “I think she deserved it”.
That seems to me to have rather negative implications. As opposed, say, to “I think she earned it”.
Not sure I have a point to make, beyond the fact that the phrase seemed rather strange in the context.
-
AuthorPosts
