[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@lisa

A great link! I read the article. It was fascinating. And the symbols on page 2 were, as you point out, very evocative of the markings on the Doctor’s Portable CD Player. Others on the site, who are far more erudite in matters medieval than I, will, I am sure, enlighten us further.

Thanks!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@doctorcapaldi, @craig

Your post above seems to have been a spoiler–ALL spoilers on the Spoiler page ONLY!

Thanks.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@brewski Your ideas have got me thinking about the Doctor the the weapon.

These are just thinking aloud thoughts. Now, I am assuming that because of what happened at the beginning of the episode (the Doctor finding the boy Davros and running away) that Davros now remembers. But, what if the Doctor goes back with a modified Dalek weapon to exterminate Davros’s memory of the encounter with the Doctor on the battlefield (both encounters actually) and then saves boy Davros in some typical Doctor way–the result being that the Doctor redeems himself in his own eyes, and effectively counters Davros’s belief that “compassion is wrong”?

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@brewski

Indeed. But that was the 6th Doctor (who, let’s face it, had his own problems–namely, John Nathan Turner). But it is not the sort of thing I would expect Moffat’s Doctor to do.

Your main point, though, is a good one.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@brewski

Of course the Doctor does not go back to kill the boy.

Yes he exterminates the handmines instead.

Hmmm. But why go back with a weapon (not really a Doctor sort of thing) and exterminate the hand mines? If he went back to assuage his conscience, why not go back to do what he was trying to do in the first place, get the boy to focus on the “one” in the one chance in a thousand, and effect a very Doctor-like rescue?

I’m not saying you are wrong, but the scenario (killing what are presumably living creatures) doesn’t sound like the Doctor to me.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@serahni

Exeactly my point. Yes, he sent her the CD Player, but is it his last will and testament?

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@lisa

Of course, we only have Missy’s word that the CD player contains the Doctor’s last will and testament.

And how much stock would one place in Missy to tell the truth?

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@mudlark

Clangers!

Yes! I had forgotten that:

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@purofilion, @janetteb, @scaryb, @ichabod, @mudlark,

I confess that once this forum was set up (how long now?) by the wonderful @craig and monitored by our worthy Time Lords, I abandoned the Guardian Doctor Who site, and have never returned. Even reading your posts brings back the foul stench of what it was like over there. I feel for @danmartinuk, who tried then, and I believe continues to try, to engage in civilized discussion, but, well…for me personally, life is too short to sink into that fetid bog.

I may not agree with everyone over here, but, by god, I appreciate the civility!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@scaryb

poor Bors

Actually, I thought Bors was treated rather shabbily as a character. In The Doctor’s Meditation he came across as a really likeable and comic character. He really had  served the Doctor well, and would, in fact, have made a great companion. So to have him Dalekized in TMA was, I thought, a cruel waste of a good character and a good actor. I would have liked to have seen more Bors.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@bendubz11

He wants to save the TARDIS, that’s been the only constant in the Doctor’s life

Well, perhaps, but I don’t really buy that. I know that the TARDIS has been anthropomorphised in the last few years, (e.g. “The Doctor’s Wife”), but at the end of the day, I still think it is a vehicle, and as Missy said: “Never trust what a man says about a vehicle”. For me, it seems to go against what the Doctor stands for to prioritize a machine over human life.

I am really starting to wonder if it isn’t Davros that the Doctor is referring to. If you go back to “The Prologue” we now know that when Ohilia and the Doctor are talking, they are talking about Davros:

Ohilia: “You owe that creature nothing”

The Doctor: “We’ve known each other a long time”.

Ohilia: You’ve been enemies the whole time”

The Doctor: “An enemy’s just a friend you don’t really know yet”

He now knows something about Davros that he didn’t know before–that he was a frightened little boy who needed to be saved.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@denvaldron

the Doctor makes reference to ‘saving his friends’

@spider

(now does he say friend or friends here? – need to go rewatch)

Actually, in the final scene boy Davros says: “Are you going to save me?” and the Doctor replies: “I’m going to save my friend”.

Friend-in the singular.

Now that opens up a whole heap of possibilities. Which friend? Clara? Missy?…Davros?

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Not sure if anyone has already referenced this upstream, but it was sort of cool to see Kelly Hunter as the Shadow Architect, previously seen in “The Stolen Earth”. SM is usually very sparing in referencing characters and events from the RTD years.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

He’s not facing an ‘inevitable’ death.

Yes, I agree. On the other hand, Moffat does tend to borrow from himself in regard to narrative structure. After re-viewing this episode I could not shake the feeling that just like the resolution at Lake Silencio (The Doctor miniaturized in a tessalector that had been planned in advance) or the Doctor seeming to die in the British Museum, only to flip back and forth in time to re-arrange the screwdriver, or the phone call from the future to have the timelord 3D painting relocated, that the scene is being set here for a well-planned escape plan.

Having Clara turn up in the 12th century to locate the Doctor (or having been dragged along by Missy), his farewell to her as he prepares for transport to Davros’s ship (a bit of an apology but mainly silence) seems like a rather perfunctory goodbye. His abject pleading with Davros to save Clara doesn’t quite gell with our impression of the Doctor either. So, I start to wonder, will next week reveal a plan that the Doctor has had all along–not a tessalector this time, but (as previously) a fiendishly clever plan to escape from the jaws of death that Moffat’s Doctor always seems to have.

So, why did Missy bring Clara along for the ride? Could it be that Missy and the Doctor have worked out the plan in advance, and it requires Clara? Not sure. On past evidence, Moffat’s Doctor’s plans seem to be just that–the Doctor’s plans alone.

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Missy’s rather cruel jibe to Clara about Danny: “still dead is he?”. Why put this in? Blenkinsop’s (probably wrong) prediction: He either isn’t, or even if he is, he will return in some capacity. Missy’s line was preparing us.

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@scaryb I see we are thinking along similar lines, although your slightly alarming idea that the Doctor might be Davros in some timey-wimey takes us to a place far too dark for me! (or the show I suspect)

So, my caffeine-enhanced thoughts are a slight variation on yours. On the basis of the show just watched I wonder if Clara is the the Magician’s Apprentice (the magician being the Doctor) and she certainly was standing in for the Doctor with UNIT (in fact, coming up with more ideas than Kate Lethbridge-Stewart). So, perhaps Clara is also the Witch’s Familiar (the witch being Missy). Missy refers to Clara explicitly as an animal, unlike her (Missy’s) perception of Time Lords, and as this episode established an uneasy alliance between Missy and Clara, so that alliance might be crucial to saving the Doctor in the next episode. Clara, was, after all, born to save the Doctor.

On the other hand, it is me saying all this so we can take it as read that this won’t happen…

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Hold on though, perhaps there is…the title of the show: “The Witches Familiar”, since a ‘familiar’ refers to an animal-shaped spirit or minor demon believed to serve a witch or magician as domestic servant, spy and companion, in addition to helping to bewitch enemies or to divine information (a definition I just got off the web, so it must be true!)

OK, how can we use that to theorize about what the episode holds? Hmm…definitely more coffee required.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Ooh, trailer for the next episode!

But not really enough material to construct a bonkers theory. Perhaps more coffee required.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Great to see that there is pretty much universal agreement (on this this civilized forum at least) on just what a great season opener this was. But…

@thekrynoidman

I thought the scene where he rides in on a tank with an electric Guitar was too silly and a bit cringe worthy to be honest.

@supernumerary (on Sarff)

I now can’t see past the fact that he’s riding a Segway

Yes! I confess that both those thoughts occurred me as well!

But in a funny sort of way, that helps make Doctor Who the brilliant and totally unique show it is.

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Back after a second viewing. Still “wow!”

In a way, this story seems to continue the question that Capaldi’s Doctor asked last season: “Am I a good man?” (but I think they execute it far more effectively here).

I am assuming that far from giving in to Davros (who wants him to admit that compassion is wrong) that he will go back and exercise compassion to save the child Davros, and thereby save his friends, and yet end up making Davros, and by implication the Daleks, himself. (Of course, everything I have ever predicted turns out to be wrong…) And yet, the line he used: “Davros made the Daleks, but who made Davros?” must surely have relevance for the resolution of the story.

Now off to read the comments.

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Wow! Have not read any other impressions yet, but my initial response was…Wow! This is a perfect example of why I hold SM in such high regard. It is Moffat who is the magician. Still processing my thoughts but the whole premise of the plot is a brilliant blending of old and new. It is both faithful to BG Who and yet prepared to take the show to a new level in terms of tone.

Best line: “See that couple over there? You are the puppy.”

Off to watch it again.

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Hurrah! Many, many, thanks to @ichabod for the iTunes suggestion. I have purchased season 9 on iTunes, and just watched the trailer (again) to prove that I actually had it. Many thanks also to @scaryb, @janetteb, @purofilion, @lisa, and @juniperfish for the suggestions and support.

Time for Mrs Blenkinsop and I to break out the jammy dodgers!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Hi @lisa, thanks so much for that. Still trying. Will give it a go. I am sure I will prevail!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Hey, whoa, everybody,

Time to chill out.

We are all on the same side here.

Crikey, you think you have problems? I still haven’t figured out a way to even watch the episode yet!

But…I am still trying!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@arbutus. Your thoughts are far from rambling. You make a good point about the series of genres utilized this (past) season. But for me, this  made the season feel a bit disjointed. It was a bit like the season where Matt Smith did the western, etc. And maybe you can get away with that when you have established the character and the arc of the Doctor (which they did brilliantly in Matt Smith’s first season as the Doctor), but I am not sure it worked with a brand new Doctor.

Peter Capaldi is simply brilliant, not only as the Doctor, but in everything he does, but I really felt that they didn’t quite know what to do with him in his first season. Even the re-vamped Tardis was an example of this. It acquired books, and a vaguely Edwardian feel, but it never really related to the Doctor as he was presented in the stories, which, as you point out, were so very different each week in tone.

Dear me, I hope this is not coming across as ARSE. I hope, rather, that it might be read in the spirit of the byline of my profile that I have shamelessly pinched from a quote by the third Doctor: “a touch sardonic perhaps, but not cynical”.

However, my main concern in the next 24 hours is to figure out a way of watch the show (as I am too cheap to pay for cable). I am trying to upload a service that claims to let me look at sites outside my region in the wilds of Ontario (such as BBC iPlayer), but the instructions look fearfully complicated for a person who only mastered the art of the retractible Bic biro a couple of years ago. I may be back soon, or after the release of the DVDs. Oh dear…

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

I am with you, @pedant. This site is precisely the one place they should safe.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@purofilion,

I think this is the trailer being referred to (article contains possible spoilers)

http://screenrant.com/doctor-who-season-9-tv-spot-plot-details/

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@purofilion

Hop over to the spoilers page…

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@mudlark

I will look out for the Lindsey Davis novel based on your recommendation.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

For @toinfinityandbepond and @mudlark

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@mudlark. Oh, I don’t know. There might be something in @toinfinityandbepond‘s idea. There is something rather appealing about the thought of Frankie Howerd’s Lurcius interacting with Peter Capaldi’s Caecilius…

Indeed, the Doctor’s new face might be result of one one of Frankie Howerd’s cringe-worthy double entendres. The more I think about the more I like it! I might see if I can re-interpret the Prologue in that light…

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

Clara is the illegitimate Time Lady daughter of Missy and the Doctor, chameleon arched into a human being as a small baby and adopted by the Oswald family. A perception filter means that neither they or Clara remember that she is adopted.

A bonkers theory of genuine grandeur! I salute you!

Less convinced about the twins theory, but still suitably bonkers!

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

And I sure this must have been discussed before, but the experience of the Doctor and Clara appearing in Rupert’s room would be the type of thing you wouldn’t forget.  And yet Danny clearly does not recognize either Clara or the Doctor when he meets them.

Or is this just one of those times that Mrs Blenkinsop refers to as: “You’re not supposed to think about that”?

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

OK, watched this again last night, and…am I correct in thinking that we first see the toy soldier in little Rupert’s box of toys? We next see the toy soldier when Orson gives it (a family heirloom) to Clara. And we finally see it when Clara leaves it with the young Doctor (almost 2000 years younger than he is now) in his bed in the barn.

So, does this mean that the Doctor had to give it to Rupert for Rupert to have it?

Is there something really obvious in its timeywimeyness that I am missing?

Has this been discussed above and I have forgotten (very likely)

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Have just watched it again. I am now convinced that three separate people are being referred to: “He”, who the Doctor reluctantly has agreed to see “soon”–“that creature”, who is both enemy and friend–and finally, when he hands over his Portable CD Player (sorry!) “you know who to give that to”.

For some reason, I feel that last reference is to a third person. As to who all these people are, well…

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@pedant
I rushed over to the Guardian half-expecting Jeremy Corbyn to reveal details of the season in Question Time, but…I see what you mean. Spoilerphobes beware, indeed.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@purofilion

A fez….hmm. That’s a tricky one. What about the much-easier-to-acquire bow tie? (both red and blue, of course)

And, Tennant, surely, did have a prop–sandshoes! (and very easy to acquire)

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@brewski

That is a fascinating idea! The last we saw of him he was off in a time vortex, so presumably could still be alive. But…the last we saw of him was in 1968. I wonder if enough of the viewing audience in 2015 would even know who Salamander was? It would take a lot of time to establish just who he was and how he was a spitting image of the second Doctor. I am just not sure that would work in terms of story telling. But…it is still a great idea!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@purofilion

however, however…forget all howevers!!

tomorrow may be the day for reflection, today is the day for celebration!

and if it wasn’t about 10am in your neck of the woods, I would suggest a celebratory raising of the glasses!

Oh, what the hell, it’s 10am, so what!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@purofilion

Yes, yes, I agree.  But…Abbott is gone! (even the words sound sweet) Rejoice in the moment!

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@ichabod. I haven’t been looking at the Music thread recently, and so only just learned about you sister. To aid her swift recovery (as I am sure it will be) below is my candidate for the most cheery and fun music (for a cheery and fun movie) that I know. I could only find the music attached to the trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIiCtxXtVXY

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@lisa

it seems like a small shift that might roll into some more good stuff eventually?

Let’s hope so! Australia has some really good traditions, like a healthy social egalitarianism and a self-deprecating sense of humour, but it comes with some unhealthy historical baggage (like the legacy of the White Australia Policy) which it has never been quite able to shake off.

@arbutus

If only it was possible to pull the chain on Harper!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@lisa

While it is great to see the back of him, it was only an internicine putsch, not a change of government, alas. It is as if the Daleks had turned on Davros, but it is still the Daleks running the place. As for Davros’s replacement, is he a “good Dalek”? We shall see.

Although, at least the replacement to Davros supports same-sex marriage and getting rid of the monarchy, which is a big improvement on the weasel he replaced!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@purofilion, @janetteb, other Australians on the site, and all civilised peoples of the world,

I awoke this morning to the news that “the suppository of wisdom” (as the appalling Prime Minister Tony Abbott was referred to after a gaffe he made in a speech) has been flushed away!

What brilliant news! I am almost inclined to jump on a plane and fly back to join in the celebrations!

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

By golly, I think you’ve got it!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@janetteb, @arbutus,

Too kind.

I was sitting on a train at the time, on a four-hour journey, and the brain starts to wander after a while.

@phaseshift

The communicator bearing the seal of Rassilon? Are you sure it’s not a portable CD player…?

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

OK, I have watched it a couple of more times, and here is my theory: “He wants to see you.” This is a reference to one of the most powerful entities in the cosmos–the Great Librarian” who wants to see the Doctor because the last time the Doctor was in the Galactic Library, he borrowed a Big Finish audio recording and has failed to return it. It is now hundreds of years overdue and the fine is, well, really rather large. As a result, the Great Librarian has sent out his servants (the Vashta Nerada, of course) to find the Doctor. The Great Librarian is not to be trifled with. But the High Priestess of Karn realises that something is wrong. It is “that creature”, who is, of course the Meddling Monk, who stole the Big Finish CD from the Doctor and was going to attempt to change history by leaving it in a record shop in 1963, before the invention of CDs. But the Doctor has stolen it back from the Meddling Monk and is now being chased by both the Great Librarian, who wants the late fine paid and the Meddling Monk, who is now mad as a cut snake. As the High Priestess of Karn realises, this situation is likely to lead to the Doctor’s destruction, or at the very least being refused access to all other lending libraries. Chastened, the Doctor hands the High Priestess his portable CD player containing the Big Picture audio CD as he contemplates his next move in this dangerous game of library ethics.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@janetteb

Actually, I felt that two separate people/entities were being referred to–and I think “he” is different from “that creature”. Just a feeling, anyway.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Well, I haven’t been reading spoilers which means I am totally mystified by the Prologue. “He wants to see you…” but “He” seems to be different from “that creature” – who is presumably the Master.

hmmm, no bonkers theories as yet…

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@phaseshift

Re: Things to watch — While you lucky people in the UK have already had the opportunity to see it, and I suppose it is on BBC iView if you haven’t, I have ordered in the DVD of the new adaptation of Agatha Christie’s “Partners in Crime” with David Wallaims and Jessica Raine:

I have always loved the original stories, and while this adaptation seems to have changed the settings wildly to set them in the 1950s, it seems like lots of fun from the trailer. And the idea of Tommy and Tuppence driving a mulberry coloured Austin Traveller seems utterly brilliant.

But please, for the sake of the colonials who have yet to see it, NO SPOILERS please!

[Author]

Posts