Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
18 December 2014 at 23:23 #36271
Since this is Moffat musing rather than a spoiler, I will post it here.
http://www.zap2it.com/blogs/doctor_who_steven_moffat_river_song_jack_harkness-2014-12
Who knows?
16 December 2014 at 03:30 #36234The coffee shop/ chocolate shop in Martin Place was right at the top, around the corner from the legal centre of Sydney, hence one of the victims being a barrister. I think it only opened about 10 years ago, so you may never have seen it. It was beautiful. Really beautiful. I used to go there, as did many friends. In fact, I used to live only a couple of streets away, before we moved to Canada. The thought of people dying there is heartbreaking.
Sorry, I am rather off topic.
On topic…@Purofilion mentioned losing very bad productions of Agatha Christie. What? You mean there are very bad productions of my favourite author? David Suchet? A god. Joan Hickson? A godess.
I understand they are about to make a new series of the Tommy and Tuppence stories with David Walliams as Tommy. Hmm, well not entirely sure about that, but who knows.
15 December 2014 at 22:41 #36225Use Strax as your model–proud, but clueless.
There should be references in your speech about the Sontaran inability to understand gender. So refer to someone everybody knows, but get the gender wrong. But not in a hurtful way–you could even refer to yourself (the human you, not the Sontaran you) and get the gender wrong.
Watch lots of Strax tonight for inspiration.
11 December 2014 at 03:18 #36170Namibia.
My initial concerns were with the fact that it wasn’t filmed in Australia and therefore the quality of light (which is distinctively Australian in the early movies) would be lost. But I think this trailer makes up for that.
11 December 2014 at 02:04 #36168Mad Max: Fury Road.
OK, on the basis of this new trailer
I am willing to change my assessment. This looks brilliant!
7 December 2014 at 13:53 #36089The monopoly isn’t nation-wide, as wine can be had in retail outlets like supermarkets in Quebec, but it does exist in provinces like Ontario and British Columbia, as @arbutus points out. Why this should be so in the 21st century is a baffling question. I put it down to a hangover (no pun intended) from the days of grim Presbyterian guilt in the 19th century. Of course, I am old enough to remember the awful 6 o’clock swill in the pubs of Australia, and the dry Sundays, until Australia entrered the modern age in the 1960s.
And here in Canada the provincial governments use it as a revenue earner, in the way the state governments in Australia use the lotteries. Where it gets quite bizarre is with the existence of something prosaically called “The Beer Store” here in Ontario, which is actually a privately run state-endorsed monopoly on beer sales. A private monopoly enforced by the state. Think about that for a minute. And I was taught that monopolies were anathema to the law. But what do I know?
6 December 2014 at 23:49 #36077@purofilion.
Ah, Margaret River…yes…but unfortunately, these days the joys of the Margaret River are limited in the state-sanctioned monopoly of wine sales here in the wilds of Canada.
As for single-malts, Mrs Blenkinsop is particularly partial to the finest that Scotland has to offer. Some years ago, we were in the Western Isles, staying on Mull. We were there to trace the shooting locations of our all-time favourite film: I Know Where I am Going (but that is another story). Anyway, I recall Mrs Blenkinsop being very taken with a smokey “Oban”. We brought back a bottle of “Jura”; purchased, in part, because of the Orwell connection. On that trip we never made it to Jura, but one day we will get back, so that I can pay homage.
You have been through the wars, though. Hang in there.
2 December 2014 at 03:18 #36004Hello @katharine
I agree entirely with you about Deadwood. I saw it as a brilliant rendition of the growth of civil society in the United States. It was (as I saw it) a Hobbesian world that was “nasty, brutish and short” that (over the course of three seasons) slowly lurched towards a civil society. I loved it!
I agree entirely that it should have been allowed to conclude with a fourth series. But even what is available to us is better than just about everything on offer.
@purofilion. You MUST watch this! For three reasons: 1) it is excellent, 2) you can purchase all three seasons for a pittance these days, 3) because of all the things that have been discussed elsewhere.
30 November 2014 at 02:55 #35916Hello Captain Controversial, my fishy friend.
I’m not sure that postmodern relativism counts necessarily as a ‘bad thing’. I’m not sure the story needed to go deeper into historical context
Oh well, I suppose I will have to reply to this as well.
I will do it by repeating something I said in response to discussion of our viewing of the wonderful Quatermass and the Pit earlier this year. I said this (and yes, it was in response to something you had said):
Anyway, now that the utterly, utterly brilliant Quatermass and the Pit is over, I wanted to add a feeble contribution to the excellent reflections of @bluesqueakpip, @phaseshift and @scaryb. This show must rank as one of the most important, and fabulous TV shows of all time. And what is its theme? Tolerance. I cannot think of another show intended for a popular audience that has made the point so effectively that we should always be sceptical, particularly of our own pretentions to certainty; of our own hubris.
It is a show that dealt with themes that were both universal, and very specific to a time and place. I refer to the Notting Hill race riots of 1958. Back on the board during discussion of the first episode the ever-excellent James of the piscine persuasion took offence at the representation of the Teddy Boy who was presented as a clueless twit when interviewed by the reporter. At the time, @craig rightly encouraged us to refrain from any talk that might reveal spoilers, so I bit my tongue. But in light of the themes that have become so clear by the end of the show, we should remember that the Notting Hill race riots were vivid and immediate to both the makers and the viewers of the show. And it was, in large measure, racist Teddy Boys who were responsible for the violence directed to the black inhabitants during those race riots. With knowledge of that context, the representation of the Teddy Boy was remarkably restrained, in my view. Historical context is really rather important when appreciating an historical document like Quatermass and the Pit. But no offence intended to the wonderful James of the piscine variety.
So, what is my point? It is that historical context is always important. And it is also that postmodern relativism necessarily does count as a bad thing.
I could go on about this for some time, but quite frankly, I had to fight so many battles over this that were so toxic over so many years, that I think that is all I really want to say on this topic.
This is, after all, Doctor Who. It is a wonderful place to be and so is this website, and I want, desperately, to keep it that way.
29 November 2014 at 18:45 #35904The thing I think you are forgetting is that this episode was broadcast in the United Kingdom in 1989. There was absolutely no need for the story to provide ‘historical context’. None.
Well, there are so many things I disagree with about that, it is hard to know where to begin. Actually, I wasn’t forgetting where and when it was broadcast. Strangely enough, for someone who was teaching at university at the time, I was (am still am, actually) all too aware. I was (and am) also all too aware that there is ‘always’ a need for a story like that to provide ‘historical context’. Always.
As both I, and @purofilion, reflected on, postmodern relativism was a horrible, pernicious thing that seeped, like a gangrenous bowel movement, through the academy and out into popular culture. Whenever I see evidence of it infecting popular culture, particularly something as special to me as Who, I feel it is incumbent on me to say something. Which I did. I cannot see I have anything to add to my original thoughts on the subject.
But who knows, episode 3 may redeem itself in my eyes. Postmodern relativism never will.
28 November 2014 at 23:49 #35872Where is everybody?
It’s like the Wreck of the Marie Celeste on the site.
27 November 2014 at 13:09 #35861Does this mean you are back in the land of the living?
Sleepers in Xmas ep? Umm, what have I missed?
23 November 2014 at 14:29 #35839It is not that they highlight the actions of Bomber Command that rankles with me (indeed it is a powerful corrective to a sanatized interpretation of the war). Rather, it is the complete absence of historical context that is the approach of postmodern relativism that I recoil against. There is no notion presented of why the war is happening, or what the stakes are, there is just the simplistic “the British were as bad as the Nazis” lesson (minus the whole Holocaust issue, of course). And, then, as you point out, there are the plucky Russians heroically killing off the English soldiers (who have been tarnished by the brush of Bomber Command), or being unfairly sacrificed to to evil vampire monsters.
I don’t really want to derail discussion of what is, after all, Doctor Who (or, as I think, a rather pale reflection of a once great Doctor Who) into a serious discussion of historical interpretation, it is just that I used to teach the subject and saw, as did @purofilion, the pernicious effects that postmodern relativism had on the academy in the 80s and 90s, and, like the Norse thingy under the water, this has awakened an old professional anger in me!
22 November 2014 at 18:21 #35819OK, I am trying to like this story, I really am! But…
As I said of last week’s installment, I pretty much gave up on BG Who after Peter Davision, (thanks to you, JNT) and have seen little of Sylvester McCoy. Sure, there were bits in here that worked, but, for me, anyway, so much that didn’t. In some respects it seemed like it was a poor imitation of much better shows by others from 10 years previously–specifically, John Carpenter’s “The Fog” and the excellent BBC Western Isles-set thriller “The Nightmare Man”, directed by Douglas Camfield and scripted by Robert Holmes. But in comparison to both of them, it was pretty ropey. The two evacuee girls as possessed vampires was high school acting at best.
But it wasn’t just that. The story is impossibly complicated; there must be at least three separate stories competing for attention, and the 80’s relativist attitude (all combatants are equally guilty) rankles with me. Having Millington sit in an office styled on his Nazi counterpart in order to “think like him” is, well, a trifle lacking in subtlety, perhaps?
Who knows, great things might happen in the next couple of episodes, but I have this feeling (which I got from the other stories of the late JNT period) that this is more a simulacrum of “Doctor Who” than it is Doctor Who.
21 November 2014 at 01:42 #35776Finally got to watch it. I had not seen this before, and I have studiously avoided reading any other comments before posting. I will start with a declaration:
I gave up on BG Who after Peter Davison (looking back , I blame it on JNT). When I dabbled into post-Peter Davison Who, I did not like what I saw. As for Doctor #7 it was only recently that I saw one of his stories–it was “Remembrance of the Daleks”. Now…I have to say this…I hated it. I thought the idea behind it was fine, but I thought the execution was horrible. The bright cartoon colours, the wobbly Daleks, the baseball bat (oh god, the memory of the baseball bat gives me the heebee geebees).
So, back to “The Curse of Fenric”. I have no idea where this story is heading, but there were a couple of things I picked up in this opening episode that made me nervous. I got the sense that this take on WW2 is one that is filtered through the perceptions of the 1980s. By that, I mean a time when (amongst a certain intellectual persuasion) ALL war was seen as wrong, and therefore ALL combatants were seen as equally wrong. It was also a time that valorised postmodern relativism (I hated it then, and I hate it now).
Therefore…I await episode 2…nervously.
14 November 2014 at 02:17 #35518Thanks so much for coming over here to say hello. I am one of the many who was attracted to your site because of the way you set it up as a place to discuss all things Who.
But then it attracted, well…trolls, and this site seemed like such a refuge. And, I confess, I haven’t gone back. It is just too awful.
But without you setting up your site and bringing together so many peopLe who really wanted to talk about the show in a way that was civilized and courteous, this site would never have existed. Thank you so much for that.
13 November 2014 at 14:36 #35448An excellent survey. In fact, perhaps it should be a blog of its own, so that we can share Master memories.
13 November 2014 at 13:31 #35442Next up Osgood death. Her death had already served it’s dramatic purpose. It was final and complete. If she is bought back by some timey wimey Doctor stuff it won’t affect the dramatic theme of Death in Heaven, just as River appears post Silence in the Library doesn’t decrease the sacrifice she made for the Doctor.
I think this is a really good point, and, although I respect the views of @pedant and others on Osgood’s death, I think there are ways of bringing her back in a way that makes narrative sense, without diminishing the impact of her death at the hands of Missy.
I certainly hope so, anyway. Oh, and:
Ps the only religion I have is welly boots and dry warm clothes
It is good to know that you can practice your religion in
the eternal triangle of Bucks, Oxon and Northamptonshire where the winds blow, the rain cascsdes and the earth slowly liquifies into a soul sapping gelatinous ooze….
so that we don’t have to!
Stay warm and dry my squelchy friend.
12 November 2014 at 23:02 #35409Having now watched it a second time, I got over my overly emotional response of the first viewing, and thought it was brilliant in just about every respect. So, I think it did live up to the promise of the first part. And yet, I find myself in agreement with most of your points. Specifically:
1. Agree (but then I am more IT clueless than most of humanity)
2. Not sure I agree with this one, as I see the show as fantasy rather than sci-fi (which I have my reservations about, actually, given that I was attracted to the show way back when because of Verity Lambert’s educational-but-emtertaining premise).
3. Agree. Excellent point.
4. Actually, I thought Samuel Anderson was pretty good.
5. Agree (with glee!)
6. Agree. I am a sucker for self-sacrifice.
7. Agree.
8. Agree. In fact, agree again.
9. I loved the BG Brigadier, but I think there would need to be a genuine narrative rationale to bring the cyber-Brig back.
10. Agree strongly. In fact, the viewer response to her death has been so strong (perhaps even stronger than to his awful United Colours of Benneton Daleks) that I would not at all be surprised if (just like the way he quietly forgot about the Teletubbie Daleks) he finds a way to bring back Osgood.But who knows what will happen in the christmas special–which I think will be, in part, the resolution of this episode.
12 November 2014 at 17:38 #35398Excellent news!
11 November 2014 at 15:38 #35350Re: the question of civilizing the Guardian blog–forget it! It is beyond redemption. Remember the reason why we (but mostly our excellent emperor @craig) set up this site in the first place: to find a haven for civilized discussion. Nothing has changed. Or, if anything has changed, this site has grown and matured, and the Guardian blog has sunk deeper into a sink of invective and bile.
In some ways, I think of this site as a little akin to the TARDIS–bigger on the inside, full of fun and whimsy and great discussions, but not immune to friction or even death (as we all remember), whereas the Guardian blog is, oh, maybe more like the asylum of the Daleks, reveling in divine hatred.
Given a choice between invective and bile on the one hand and jammie dodgers and jellybeans on the other, I know where I stand.
10 November 2014 at 22:28 #35290More hope dashed. Now I really do need the jammie dodgers. I’ll have to settle for a glass of wine.
10 November 2014 at 22:24 #3528810 November 2014 at 19:26 #35276I am unsettled.
As am I. I had almost precisely the same response to all the things you mention. In fact, I have not been able to even give it a second viewing yet, as a result of my emotional response. It was, as you say, unrelentingly bleak. I can only hope that the story will be resolved in the Christmas special in a way that brings some hope.
But I suppose I should watch it again. I must be strong.
10 November 2014 at 19:13 #35274Not a spoiler as such, but I thought it prudent to post it here:
On the BBC Doctor Who page there is a short video interview with Ingrid Oliver, talking about playing Osgood and her death at the hands of Missy. She ends the interview by saying (something like): “But hey, it’s Doctor Who, so who knows…” and then smiles knowingly.
10 November 2014 at 02:34 #35218Finally got to see it (have not read any comments yet, so apologies if others have covered what I am about to say). Not quite sure precisely what my response is yet, Except to say this:
It was an emotionally troubling viewing experience for me–but I think it was designed that way. Following on from that point, we were led to believe this was a two-part story, but I think this is actually the second part of a three-part story, and that the way the final credits were interrupted with the trailer for the Christmas episode demonstrated that the story will be resolved then.
Now, if an episode including Santa Claus is any clue, then I assume that some of the things that happened in this episode can be changed if we wish hard enough. If so, at the top of my list would be the recovery of Osgood, who would, on the basis of what we saw of her here, make a fabulous companion. And her death was, quite simply, too cruel to let stand.
8 November 2014 at 05:25 #34980On the road at the moment, so a quick message before Death in Heaven. If the Master’s TARDIS is not the nethersphere on the inside and St Paul’s on the outside, then …Blame Blenkinsop!
and I will also nail my colours to the mast with this prediction: the Doctor is right–SEB, the nethersphere, it is all a con.
4 November 2014 at 22:17 #34755maybe Clara is the Doctor and Missy’s daughter
They’ve both called her “Clara, my Clara” if I’m not mistaken.If so, then wouldn’t she have two hearts? Surely somebody at the NHS would have picked that up by now.
4 November 2014 at 17:01 #34741Brilliant! The more outraged they are, the funnier they are.
4 November 2014 at 15:13 #34736Remember the image of the skeletal hand holding the sonic screwdriver in a trailer half-way through series 6?
I have forgotten, but did that image play out in a subsequent episode? (I have a vague memory that it was left unexplained, but I could be wrong.) The reason I ask is whether it might have relevance to next week, in light of what we saw this week. If so, Moffat has been playing a very long game indeed.
3 November 2014 at 23:32 #34690Loved your list of Clara’s post-it notes. I admire your dedication. In fact, I was inspired by your example to have a look myself, and discovered that, not only does she have two notes for Robin Hood, but also two notes for Three Months.
You don’t think that she slipped away with Robin in Sherwood Forest when we weren’t looking, and…
No, perhaps not, but there is something strangely appealing about the idea. One can only imagine her trying to explain it to Danny. Hold on, was that what the phone call was about?
<OK, I’ll stop now.>
3 November 2014 at 16:24 #34646To paraphrase a famous line from one of the worst movies ever made:
“being on this site means never having to say you’re sorry”
btw, where’s the trailer for “Death in Heaven”?
3 November 2014 at 16:05 #34643Boy oh boy…Because of you, I just put the DVD of “The Time of the Doctor” back in and freeze-framed the kitchen. On another screen, I have freeze-framed the kitchen in “Dark Water”. It is exactly the same kitchen! So, yes, it is her flat. In fact, I think the dialogue between Clara and her father about cooking the dinner indicates that her father emailed her instructions, presumably before coming over for dinner.
There are, indeed, some wonderful parks in London, along with some truly crappy council housing estates. But even though we have witnessed Danny’s athletic ability by doing somersaults, I think it would be even beyond Danny’s ability to make it from the Welsh National War Memorial to London in a couple of minutes!
3 November 2014 at 15:24 #34639Thanks for identifying the Welsh National War Memorial in Cathays Park. I was wondering what the monument was. And I agree that we were supposed to assume it was in London and not think too much about it. When I was watching, I was also struck by the fact that Danny is supposedly only a couple of minutes’ walk from Clara’s flat, and he appears to have been hit by a car in central London, and yet Clara’s flat, the last time we saw it from the outside (the previous episode with Gran) seemed to be in a rather desolate spot a long way from central London.
Clearly, Google Maps don’t fit into the Who universe!
3 November 2014 at 01:56 #34603Fantastic! I plan on diving in. Who knows when I will re-surface.
2 November 2014 at 23:42 #34593@purofilion
Aw, shucks! (But in reality, there were many finer minds that arrived at the same conclusion)
@The Beast (aka @glenisterm)
I think we spent most of the episode inside the Master’s TARDIS–the nethersphere on the inside, St Paul’s on the outside.
As for next week (can it be a whole week?) I have no idea what Moffat will pull off. The conclusion (the Doctor will triumph, the Master will escape, and love will save the day) is easy to predict, but the detail of how we get there…
2 November 2014 at 20:48 #34562I’m not sure we will be told how the Master got away last time, or indeed, whether we need to be told.
As @phileasf so wisely said:
Some are wondering how the Master got away from the time bubble in which Rassilon and co are imprisoned. But there’s a long tradition of the Master escaping from certain death with no explanation, and I suspect that tradition will be honoured in this case too. Once we actually saw him get ‘burnt to a crisp’, as the Doctor put it, and when he was later seen to be all right he didn’t explain why, even when it was pointed out that he was last seen being burnt to a crisp. Like the Doctor, he just always gets away.
Moffat rarely bothers to take the time to explain away stuff like that, and probably correctly so–because, at the end of the day, most people are willing to accept it. In fact, sometimes he even makes fun of not explaining what happened (a la, how did Sherlock survive the fall from the hospital?)
2 November 2014 at 18:19 #34550Have just re-watched Michelle Gomez reveal who she is again, I am revising my idea of a couple of posts above. On reflection, a regeneration into a male Master would only have worked if it came at the very end of the next episode and the reveal…omg, the Master!!…came at that point. But now that it has been revealed, there does not seem to be a point to changing the actor. And…Michelle Gomez is just too brilliant!
On another point, Seb is perhaps the most horrible character in the episode. While appearing to be sympathetic to Danny, he is, in reality, playing on Danny’s emotions and using emotional blackmail in the most egregious way to get Danny to do what Seb and the Master wants. I look forward to him getting his comeuppance!
2 November 2014 at 17:34 #34545It is probably a perception filter, just like the one making everyone believe there was a second floor to the house in “The Lodger”.
So, next week the dastardly Master (and I am still holding out hope for the second part of my original prediction–that at the end of that episode, perhaps after a tremendous battle with the Doctor, Missy will be forced to re-generate into…a male actor who will play the Master in series 9–even though I think Michelle Gomez is doing a spiffing job!) and…what was I saying?
Oh yes, so next week the dastardly Master will escape in his/her TARDIS, the perception filter will disengage and St Paul’s will still be there. A good thing too.
2 November 2014 at 16:52 #34541So, if heaven/the nethersphere is not real, then what is it? The Master’s TARDIS, with an outer shell of St Paul’s cathederal.
2 November 2014 at 16:27 #34538Have been reading everyone’s posts (and thanks @scaryb!) and I may have missed someone already noting this, but at the cliffhanger, when Danny’s finger is hovering over the Delete button, we see the reflection of the little boy from Danny’s very bad day appear as a reflection on the iPad. Not sure how that will play out next week (so long to wait!) but it was a lovely and poignant touch.
To go back to my very early thoughts on A Matter of Life and Death after “The Caretaker”, I would repeat one thing I said then about the representation of heaven in the movie–it was all in the mind of the main character. It wasn’t real, and neither is this nethersphere, I suspect.
2 November 2014 at 15:14 #34532OK, now some thoughts on this excellent episode.
A brilliant episode for so many reasons. For one thing, Moffat takes us (and 10 year olds) into some very dark waters indeed, and much of the episode is very uncomfortable and challenging (particularly for those who have recently lost someone close) but by the end Moffat brings us back to Doctor Who (and everything it represents) as the revelation that Missy is the Master reassures us that the Doctor will be triumphant, Danny will be rescued and true love will save the day. (which is also blenkinsop’s prediction for next week.)
2 November 2014 at 15:01 #34531Wow! Missy IS the Master! Blenkinsop triumphant! Hurrah!
Of course, this does ruin my hitherto unbroken record of wrong predictions…
31 October 2014 at 17:30 #34381The Finale…at Halloween! And promising to be suitably creepy!
My final prediction is…my original prediction. Missy as Master. @drben wisely pointed out that Moffat only tends to draw on BG Who if it is pre-JNT. He generally avoids RTD as well. All this narrows it down a bit. No, I stick with Missy as Master. It won’t be River for the simple reason that River has always been, and always will be, on the side of the angels…but not the Weeping Angels!
No, Missy is clearly evil, and, in the clips, almost Roger Delgado-like in mannerisms.
My only adjustment to my prediction is that Clara, who I still believe will turn out to be the Doctor’s daughter (watched “The Caretaker” again last night and it is obvious!), won’t be revealed as such in the finale, but probably in the christmas special (not a dry eye in the house!)
Enjoy the show, and feel for us poor CWCs (colonials without cable) who have to wait for iView tomorrow.
29 October 2014 at 15:45 #34278well, you make sure you come back soon. the place isn’t the same without you.
29 October 2014 at 15:06 #34274Hurrah! You’re back!
(and speaking to us from the stomach of the Tythonian Ambassador–it must be warm in there)
27 October 2014 at 20:52 #34224@craig, @fatmaninabox, @phaseshift
The post above needs to be edited to remove the spoilers that mention the trailer.
27 October 2014 at 19:32 #34221Yes, he did mention 2016. I wondered about that too.
I had another thought about it, but I might post it on the Trailers thread, in case it is a bit spoilery.
27 October 2014 at 19:27 #34219Fantastic!
There are two types of predictions:
1. What will actually happen
2. What would have been even better than Moffat’s solution
Even if you don’t get #1, I see yours as a strong early contender for #2…
27 October 2014 at 14:08 #34201Wasn’t sure where to post this–on Trailers, as it is about next week?–but decided on here, as it is about where the show is going.
OK, since we are about to arrive at the two-part finale and lead into series 9, I think now is the apropriate time for us all to nail our colours to the mast, and state where we think this is all leading.
For my part, I will stick by comments I have made upstream:
* Clara will (somehow) be revealed to be the Doctor’s daughter.
* Missy will be revealed to be the Master (after undergoing a gender change to that effect)Of course, I have an unbroken record of being wrong in every prediction I make at series’ end, but what’s the point of gut feelings if you don’t stick by them?
-
AuthorPosts
