[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

Oh, dear, I can see we have very different ideas about relationships.

From where I stand Danny stands for responsibility. He stood for responsibility in this episode, just as he stood for responsibilty in “The Caretaker”, when his first response was to want to evacuate the school. Clara, on the other hand, has been lying to him in a very irresponsible way. But she ultimately recognises the wisdom of what he says to her in this episode. And the children know what they want–to be with their mum. To have taken them on a joy ride into space in the face of that really would have been inexcusable. Does he want to stop her flying? I think not.

No, on every single level, Danny radiated goodness and wisdom.

On this one, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

But I would be interested to know what others think.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Well, I watched it, and this time read through the responses before posting, and am very surprised at the negative reaction by many. I actually quite liked it. For a children-centric story it was, in my humble opinion, miles better than, say, “Nightmare in Silver”.

It wanted to capture a child-like sense of wonder, and it delivered in spades.

I loved the way it played on the Green Man mythology, and in that sense it was very English in the way it tapped into a long tradition of fantasy and lore. It was, now that I think about it, re-capturing a tradition of innocence in fantasy and lore back from the (supposedly) adult iteration in something like “Game of Thrones”, where everything, including fantasy and lore, is expected to be “edgy” and “grounded” (those hateful, hateful words).

Was the episode part of an arc that involves @phileasf‘s brilliant bonkers theory that Clara can make things happen by imagining them? Maybe, but I think the episode can be appreciated by accepting it at face value (ie, without reference to hidden meanings or as part of an arc). This was an episode where love triumphed, where families were re-united, where Danny radiated goodness and wisdom. Have we become so cynical that we can’t accept that?

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@Purofilion

I remember a horrifying creature seen in Adelaide and Brisbane which I saw for the last time about 30 years ago: a moving collection of slug like creatures crawling together and moving at a slow but unnerving pace. The slug creatures, together, were about five feet long and four ft wide (each one was fairly small)

I used to work in an academic department with a faction that just like that…

Which is one of the reasons I have always liked Doctor Who–it is so unlike real life and good always triumphs in the end!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@mudlark

Here is a shot of the TARDIS from the Hartnell-era story “Marco Polo”

But I don’t think the issue of weight has been explained before (others might remember a specific reference, but I don’t).

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@badwulf

I am sure I am not the only one who would love to see it, so why not send it to our wonderful emperor, @craig, who I am sure can work his IT magic on it to make it appear.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@scaryb

@blenkinsopthebrave Clara as the Doctor’s daughter – not really convinced, but I love it anyway.

Ah ha! A challenge! OK, I will try and find all the evidence from Clara’s first appearance onwards.

Of course, this may take a little time.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

First impressions–after which I will go back and read everyone’s posts.

Lots of excitement, great monsters, a whiny council employee who was even more annoying than Dr Smith on “Lost in Space” (didn’t you just want to chuck him to the monsters…?), and an episode that reminded me a lot of an episode of “ST: Next Generation” (particularly the way the story revolves around correcting something going wrong with the TARDIS–just as something usually went wrong with either the Holodeck or the Transporter on the Enterprise. Indeed, the TARDIS seems to be just a machine in this one–lacking any life or personality of its own.

I thought they handled Clara’s challenge quite well–particularly at the end, where she realises that being a Doctor is about responsibility and not accolades and fun. In fact, it continues what this series has shown in relation to Clara–that she is being prepared for something bigger than simply being a companion.

At to what that might be…well, I think the jury is still out of that one. It could be preparation for parenthood, it could be that she is being primed as a weapon by Missy (although I don’t see that), or it could be that she has…a destiny. One idea that I have decided to revive is something I felt when she had her first adventures with 11–that she is the Doctor’s daughter. The way that 12 interacted with her (and she with him) in “Listen” and in this episode would fit with that, I think.

As for Missy at the end of the episode–if she chose Clara, then was she the woman in the shop? And would that fit with my idea about Clara being the Doctor’s daughter? Hmm, maybe not. But on the other hand…

More thought required. Fortunately, twilight is approaching. Perhaps a Shiraz is called for.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@phaseshift

When I saw that viewing schedule for 23 November 1963 posted by @pedant, I wasn’t just impressed by how culturally influential all those shows were; I also realised, not only that I regularly watched all of them as a wide-eyed youth in the mid-60s, but also, that taken together–(the wonder and educational inspiration of Hartnell’s Who, the surreal humour of The Goons (even the under-appreciated TeleGoons), the satire of That was the Week that was, and even (dare I admit it) the celebration of community and responsibility that was Dixon of Dock Green)–they were all crucial in shaping the youthful (and the aged) Blenkinsop.

On the other hand, of course, a whole generation saw exactly the same shows as I did and turned out far more normal!

As for soap, for me the greatest soap of all was A Family at War. God, I loved that show. Not only was it great soap, in was soap in context–it was the relationship between the social upheavals from the Spanish civil war through to the end of the second world war on the one hand, and the family trials and tribulations on the other, that made it what it was. Or, as we used to say over coffee at the university cafeteria, while pretending no-one before us had ever thought about it–the personal and the political.

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@pedant

That line-up of television on 23 November 1983 is astonishing.

Not simply “Doctor Who”, but:

“The Telegoons” (Sellars, Secombe, and Milligan)
“Dixon of Dock Green (Jack Warner)
“Comedy Playhouse” (with a script by Jack Rosenthal)
“That was the Week that was” (David Frost, et al)

The cultural impact of all of that is amazing. And all of that on one night.

And then you look at the average night of television today… Or am I being too harsh on the average night of television today? Personally, I think not.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

OK, just watched it again, and I am less convinced about the ongoing importance of Perkins, the engineer.

Damn! I am so looking for a bonkers theory, but just cannot come up with one.

All I can hang on to is the mystery of Danny. Good? (probably) Bad? (perhaps) An Auton? (unlikely)

Probably time for bed.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@lisa

Great idea about “the engineer”. I was thinking this was a stand-alone episode, without any “arc” implications; but it is true that the engineer was slightly strange–even unnerving, from his first appearance to his last. And, as you say, he gave the impression of knowing more than he let on.

Hmm. More thought required (with the assistance of another glass of wine, of course).

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Well, that was an enjoyable romp! First impressions only, and I have not had a chance to read through all the previous comments, so apologies if I say something already said.

I open with my mea culpa–the Doctor does lie.

In some senses, the episode reminded me of “The God Complex”–the monster who isn’t really a monster, the victims whose demise is a reflection of their own frailties, the orchestration of the events (GUS, on the one hand, and the security camera point-of-view, on the other hand), the confined setting (hotel, train) in which they are trapped.

If I saw the episode as building on established themes in this series, they were the Doctor being forced to re-evaluate his prejudice about soldiers (as the Mummy was not simply a soldier, but as much a victim as the rest of them) and Clara’s ongoing confusion about her attachment to this new iteration of the Doctor.

Do I think this episode was part of a larger story (a la of Lake Silencio proprortions)? As with the previous episode, I suspect not.

Does this mean I am running out of bonkers theories? I hope not, it is just that I have found the last two episodes, which I enjoyed, harder to attach bonkers theories to.

The one character who remains a complete mystery to me is Danny. I am reminded of the scene in “Sherlock” where he is confronted by the naked Irene Adler. Instead of all his impressions appearing on the screen in text, there a simply a series of questions marks. Sherlock cannot read her, and that is my response to Danny. After a number of episodes, I still have no idea of how to interpret him. Now, while that might say a lot about me, I also suspect it says a lot about the ultimate importance of Danny.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@devilishrobby, @fatmaninabox, @brewski, @Oh, everybody, really…

It might be strange, given my predilection for bonkers theories, to say this, but:

I think we might be reading too much into this episode. Clearly, Clara’s angry confrontation with the Doctor is crucial, but how are we to read that scene? I would argue that the Doctor is not lying, and everything he says to Clara is said without guile or a hidden agenda. In fact, it goes back to a point I made upstream somewhere that unlike 11, this Doctor does not obviously lie.

If you watch that final confrontation again, and focus on Capaldi, I think is is clear that he means what he says. Indeed, if it is revealed that he and the TARDIS were invisible, I tend to think it would cheapen him and what he says to Clara, and I, for one, would be disappointed by such a reveal.

This was an episode that wanted its target audience (10-year olds) to think about moral questions, and it did it in an entertaining way, with a space dragon and the moon as an egg that, from @thommck‘s account of watching it with his 10-year olds, was accepted and enjoyed by its target audience. As it was by those of us who could tap into the 10-year old lurking in us all.

But was it hiding a deeper and complex story (a la, of Lake Silencio proportions)? This time, I suspect not.

And the 10-year old lurking within the ageing Blenkinsop frame is looking forward to an adventure on the Orient Express…in space!

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Is the moon an egg?

Time for the definitive answer:

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@jimthefish

It also struck me odd that there’s such a negative response on the Graun. Normally they’re up in arms about deus ex machina (that aren’t really) and everything getting neatly tied up and possibly over-simplistic ways. Now they get a story that doesn’t give them that, that shows the fall-out of tricky moral decisions, that shows heroes changed and compromised by events and they don’t like that either

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@scaryb

The Doctor lies

But does he, as the 12th?

Damn, now I will have to watch all the episodes again, to answer my question.

It’s true that 11 used to lie through his teeth, as we all commented on. But does 12? It might be just a Blenkinsop senior moment, but I am not sure he does.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Clara’s anger

Perhaps another factor might be that he refuses to save the world when she has saved him–in fact, every previous version of him. And it was her plea to the Time Lords, that led to them giving him a new set of regenerations (according to one theory, anyway). Now, when she needs him, he says no.

But on the other hand, I would feel that more strongly if the Clara in series 8 felt like the Clara in series 7.

But in a funny sort of way, she doesn’t. The Clara that goes back to her flat after work and pours herself a glass of wine, doesn’t seem the Clara of series 7. I’m not sure why. I had always assumed that Clara was aware of her own history at some level. But this Clara doesn’t seem to have a history.

Still thinking this through.

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

I know we all disappear from the site for a while for our own various reasons (having recently been away myself), but…where is @wolfweed?

I miss the Crazy Captions, I miss the Dr Who News items, I miss the video clips, I miss being tempted by the Spoilers.

I miss @wolfweed.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

James-of-the-piscene-variety.

Welcome back, sir.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Hello @melloyello (without the “w”s–very cool!)

Just when I was thinking of posting a comment that we needed more bonkers theories instead of (albeit well argued) critiques of the episode, along you come with a fabulous bonkers theory!

I suppose I could think of a counter-argument (along the lines that Mels supposedly grew up at the same time as Amy and Rory, and so would be in her 30s by the time this episode is taking place) but your bonkers theory is so great, that I am willing to ignore that!

Could it be…? Or is Courtney a sort of Mels substitute in Moffat’s mind?

But…but…let’s go back to the point that Mels/Courtney should logically be in her 30s if she grew up with Amy and Rory. Well, one one the things that bothered me in the episode was that the Doctor assumed Courtney was 35, then maybe…he was right!

I am liking your theory, @melloyello!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@Goldmember

BTW, how are you all replying to individual posts?  I don’t see a reply with quote option.

Just type @ followed by the name of the person you are responding to (no gaps after the @) and it will come up. The Blockquote option is at the top of the box you are typing into .

Cheers.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

OK, in light of the second viewing, I would single out the final confrontation between Clara and the Doctor as the whole point of the episode. The actual story itself (the threat that is revealed to be a life that deserves compassion and protection) has been done elsewhere by Moffat (the star whale, the teller), but what is different here is Clara.

@whoville made a great reference to the episode having a Childhood’s End kind of vibe, and yes, it does, but I think it is more about Clara moving on from the secure protection of the Overlord/Doctor than it is humanity–after all, humanity was prepared to sacrifice the creature (not that Australia, Asia, or most of the southern hemisphere, got to have an opinion, of course!)

As I read that last confrontation between Clara and the Doctor, he came across (to me, anyway) as in no way condescending or patronising. He really thought he was doing the right thing, and was genuinely surprised by the response he received from Clara. But when we lash out at those we care for, we are more than often angry with ourselves. Clara prides herself on her caring and authoritative nature as the school teacher, but when the Doctor stepped aside to let her decide, instead of saving the day, as usual, she was frightened, and angry with herself because she was frightened. And so, was angry with him.

So, on second viewing I enjoyed the way it ended. And I am looking forward to the way their relationship is going to play out. But (partly for reasons given in my post above after my first viewing), I am totally stumped for bonkers theories!

Except, that is for the Michael Powell connection to the promised land–to which I will ruminate (and not, @thommck, urinate!) on.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@badwulf

Cockies. Not exactly relevant to this thread, but to answer your question with light and sound, here is a clip. I have lived in a number of locations in Australia, and this can be just what it is like outside your bedroom window (usually on a Sunday morning, when you are trying to sleep in).

 

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

I felt this episode confirmed what I had been feeling about all of series 8 so far: it seems as if this series is more about Clara than about the Doctor. This is Clara’s journey. To where? As others have noted, probably to somewhere beyond the Doctor. Whether that is with Danny, or somewhere more tragic (and there are precedents in AG Who) isn’t clear yet.

But Clara really seems to be even more central that the Doctor in this series. I know that it was “all about” Amy  and I know that Clara  was “the impossible girl”, but Clara is really occupying centre-stage this time around. In a funny sort of way, in some of the episodes Capaldi’s Doctor is off to one side (in a way that Matt Smith’s Doctor never was), or, in the case of this episode, consciously absents himself. Not sure what to make of it yet.

The other thing is that he seems strangely ignorant of things. Age for example. It is not just in this episode that he makes a bizarre comment about age: “How old are you…(to Courtney)…35?” Someone upstream made a brilliant point that it is as if the Doctor, on a second set of regenerations, beyond what is intended (natural?), is, like Rassilon and the Master, “damaged” somehow.

So, not much to say about the actual episode. Like many others, I need a second viewing. But what does seem to be clear is that many of us on the board are strangely…puzzled…by how this series is unfolding.

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Many thanks @bluesqueakpip. I’ll give it a go.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Has anybody else been having problems getting the embedded youtube clips to respond when they are using portable devices? Up until a few days ago I could always access the clips when reading the site on my iPad (or Mrs Blenkinsop’s nifty new iPad mini) but since then there is no response.

I thought someone more tech-savy than me (which includes pretty much the entire planet) might know if apple or youtube have recently changed their settings.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@pedant

Edge of Darkness – Agree 100%. Should be required viewing.

One of the finest thrillers ever made. It makes you realise just how dark and paranoid (or revolutionary–or both?) British TV drama was in the 1980s.

The 1980s, with phrases like “the personal and the political” If there was a TV show that captured the indivisibility of the personal and the political, this had to be it.

Which is not to say that I am in any way nostalgic for the 1980s. I found it a rather grim and depressing decade.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Having re-watched A Matter of Life and Death this has now become Blenkinsop’s idee fixe in relation to what is happening. @phileasf – excellent call on The Red Shoes, btw, as the relationship between Clara, Danny and the Doctor does seem to replicate the relationship between Moira Shearer’s Vicky, Marius Goring’s Julian and Anton Walbrook’s Lermontov. Although I hope that it does not follow through on that, given the rather unfortunate fate of Vicky in The Red Shoes.

No, I go back to A Matter of Life and Death (and, @phileasf, I actually think the idea of heaven in the film isn’t ambiguous–it only exists in David Niven’s character’s mind. It only appears to be ambiguous on first viewing because of the film-making genius of Powell and Pressburger).

If there is one idea that defines Moffat’s approach to the relationships between the Doctor and his companions under his tenure, it has to be the redemptive power of love. In fact, love is so powerful it can change physical reality. Rory and the Doctor can disappear but be remembered back into existence by the power of love. I fully expect that the power of love will play out in this season as well. There is a fabulous moment in A Matter of Life and Death, where the characters in “heaven” go down to earth to find evidence to save David Niven’s Peter in his trial. And they find it in a tear drop on Kim Hunter’s June, who is desperately in love with David Niven’s character, and they capture the tear drop on an English rose, and it is the evidence they present to the “heavenly” court to save his life.

Now, I am not saying that Moffat will replicate this, but it is precisely the type of thing Moffat could emulate.

In other words, I think that we should not over-emphasis the possible darkness of the Doctor, or Danny, or Clara. Rather, this is all leading to to a tear-jerking, but ultimately happy resolution in the finale, resolved by the redemptive power of love.

Of course, I could always be shot down by devastating logic (hello, out there, @bluesqueakpip…)

Now it is time for more coffee to ruminate on “the promised land”.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@scaryb

(tho I think there will be a more “real world” explanation).

But, if you remember, there is a more “real world” explanation in “A Matter of Life and Death” as well. The film is not actually set in “heaven” as all those sequences take place in the mind and imagination of David Niven’s character, who is suffering a neurological disorder. The film doesn’t actually accept the existence of heaven, just as Doctor Who doesn’t either. But what they both believe in is the power of love. I just re-watched the Powell and Pressburger film again (one of the greatest films of all British cinema) and am more than ever convinced that Moffat may be drawing on it.

What makes me think this is just how deep Danny’s and Clara’s feelings for each other were established in this episode. In the Matt Smith years there was also the theme of the love between Amy and Rory and Rory died over and over, but was brought back to life. Moffat isn’t going to do that again. But the whole notion of deep love, and the willingness of both partners to sacrifice themselves so that the other might live (as in “A Matter of Life and Death”) is very much like the sort of thing Moffat does.

In fact, since there is a week before the next episode, may this is the time to see if there is anything left in the Blenkinsop cellar and do a Powell and Pressburger retrospective.

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Finally caught up with it in the wilds of Ontario, courtesy of iPlayer.

Well, I agree entirely with @arbutus, this was a 10/10 for me. I loved every minute of it, and every line of dialogue. Indeed, I am sort of surprised by some of the criticism (too much ‘soap’). This was classic Who, and not just in the way it returned to Coal Hill and set up a set of companions including two school teachers and a student. It was also classic Who in that the reason the show captured the imaginations 50 years ago was that it was as much about the relationship between Ian, Barbara, Susan and the Doctor, as it was about flying through space and time, and this episode brilliantly captured why we should care about these new companions, and why we should care about this new Doctor. For me, this was the episode where I really believed in Capaldi as the Doctor. Perhaps even more so than “Listen”, which was also fabulous.

So many people have said so much already about the episode, that I do not want to repeat–although it was “otters”!

@cathannabel I loved your pick up on the Blorgons. I think that it just the type of meta joke Moffat would make.

@badwulf Intrigued by your idea about Mr Pink from “Reservoir Dogs”. There is clearly more to Danny than we (or even he) are aware. When I think about it, the Doctor is usually correct in his first impressions, so his refusal to see Danny as a Math teacher isn’t just irritation, I think.

On the question of Danny as a Sergeant, correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the Doctor only who refers to Danny as a Sergeant (I assumed in a generically dismissive way)? Does Danny identify himself as a former Sergeant, or only as formerly being in the military?

But the one thing that I couldn’t help thinking about in this story, was the whole “Promised Land” thing. Perhaps it was the setting of the long, white corridor, where he was welcomed to “heaven”, but it reminded me very much of Powell and Pressburger’s fabulous fantasy film from 1946, “A Matter of Life and Death”. I am now wondering if Moffat is using that illusion to set up something for the finale. The movie was about a second world war airman (played by David Niven) who is shot down, but due to a bureaucratic error in heaven, survives. By the time the error is discovered, he has fallen in love, and a trial is held in heaven to determine if he should die or be given a second chance.

Here is a clip, where the new arrivals are given their heavenly wings (note the first screen appearance of Richard Attenborough as the Sergeant and the always gorgeous Kathleen Byron):

 

 

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

Now that should really have been Crazy Captions #89

“The Whore Doctor” perhaps?

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Can Susan regenerate? Possibly.

Should Susan regenerate? Probably not.

What I mean by this is that while it is firmly established to generations of viewers of the show that the Doctor and the Master can regenerate, I am not sure that Susan is a character who is established firmly enough in the mind of the casual (or brand new) viewer to be able to be accepted as Susan if played by a different actress.

Moffat is pretty clever at balancing the desires of the committed fans with the neccessities of telling a story to a viewer with little knowledge of the history of Who. So, while it is entirely possible for him to refer to, or even bring back, Susan, I am less convinced that a different actress could carry it off. When he tried it with Mels, the response was lukewarm, to say the least.

So, for these reasons, I think we are left with two possibilities: either, he brings back Carol Ann Ford one last time for a touching farewell that links the characters (yah!) or he simply drops Susan as a character in the ongoing story of the Doctor.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@bluesqueakpip

I seem to recall running with the idea that Clara was the daughter of the Doctor and River, and therefore Susan’s mother, way back when Clara first appeared. I also recall being quite excited by the idea at the time, until it was shot down with devastating logic by those far more clever than I.

Although, for the life of me, I cannot remember what the counter-argument was.

But there is still something emotionally appealing about the idea.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@thommck

Yes, of course. There must have been a memory worm with me in the cellar.

Mind you, when the Doctor mentions the woman in the shop and says: “we still don’t know who that was”, it was a perfect opportunity for Clara to look at him and say: “well, actually…” but she didn’t.

Hmm. Now I am questioning my previous reflection. Obviously time for still more coffee.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Still catching up, and I have undoubtedly missed this, but has there been any discussion of whether Susan was the woman in the shop who gave Clara the phone number? (which would be a nice way of bringing Carol Ann Ford back)

Also, I am not conversant with the Who novels (and therefore I am ignoring them in terms of canon) but since it has now been established that not all Gallifreyans are Time Lords, then am I correct in concluding that Susan was not necessarily a Time Lord? After all, just because she was related to the Doctor does not have to mean she was a Time Lord, yes?

Of course, the point of that reflection escapes me at the moment. Time for more coffee.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@phileasf

acausal loops

Fabulous post. It is posts like that this make this site the brilliant place it is.

Not much in the way of coherent thoughts from me yet–having only recently been released from the cellar, the light is still a bit overwhelming. But some reflections (albeit, not quite as brilliant as @phileasf) soon. Hopefully.

Oh well, maybe just one now. Has anyone noted that the whole acausal loop in this episode is reminiscent of Moffat’s joke in his Comic Relief Doctor Who parody “The Curse of Fatal Death”?

“I went back in time and bribed the architect to build the castle….” etc, etc.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Hurrah! Mrs Blenkinsop has finally agreed to let me out of the cellar. Fortunately, the cellar was well stocked.

And thanks to @purofilion, @janetteb, @arbutus, @craig, @phaseshift for the thoughts.

Crikey, so much to catch up on. It might take a while.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@juniperfish and @craig

I feel the need to respond to you collectively, even though the films are different.

@juniperfish

Sad to hear the repsonse to “Dawn”, as I had (maybe still have) high hopes for it, but your comment about the nuclear family made me think you were probably accurate, as it is all about context. And it is so often hard to escape from the context of the 21st century American sentimental valorization of the nuclear family. Which leads me to

@craig

Of course, Mad Max 2 was awesome and unforgettable. Partly because of its context. There had not been another movie quite like it at the time (except perhaps John Carpenter’s Assault on Precinct 13). But what was different, and unique, about MM2 was the setting. Australia. The colours are unique. This trailer lacks that, and while it looks good, it looks, well, too slick maybe. There was a visceral violence (and humour) to MM2 that took your breath away. Not sure I see that in the trailer.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@phaseshift

Hurrah!

<Blenkinsop considers a late career move into PR. Thinks to self: “Is it possible to convince everyone to buy the DVD of the Opening Ceremony of the Commonwealth Games, or is that even beyond the capacity of Blenkinsop?”>

Less than five pounds for THE Colin? A mere bagatelle !

And remember, I did offer the opportunity of a double dose of Colin…

But no matter. In only a few days the Rani will fail to be intimidated by Colin’s…ahem…costume.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@fatmaninabox

Have you had your first class in the Glasshouse yet?

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Just re-watched both episodes with Mrs Blenkinsop, and it struck me that Will Chandler was something of a lost soul, and I would not be surprised if he came to a sticky end. Then it stuck me that it would seem strangely appropriate if the Doctor took him back to 1643 and plopped him right into A Field in England. Somehow, that seems to have a certain narrative logic (if unfortunate) as an end for Will.

And, of course, A Field in England was directed by Ben Wheatley, who is directing “Deep Breath” on August 23. So it all ties back to Doctor Who!

@Wolfeed. Agreed. Would love to see the Malus again in a future story. And SM has said that he has probably finished with the Weeping Angels and is looking for a new monster. Seems tailor-made.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@phaseshift

was it just me who thought that Polly James Jane was more preferable as a companion?

I was actually reminded a lot of the interaction between Matt Smith’s Doctor and Meera Sayal’s Nasreen in the Silurian two-parter. Yes, Polly James was excellent in this, and it does raise a point about who is, and who is not, allowed to be a female companion on the show. Both Polly James and Meera Sayal displayed great chemistry with the Doctor, and both could have been great companions. But unfortunately, the bias against middle-aged women and the bias in favour of young, pretty, female companions who need rescuing, is still as in evidence today as it was in JNT’s day. And this is ironic, since the very first female companion Barbara (I’m not counting the Doctor’s grand-daughter) was (to the target audience of 11 year olds) the personification of a strong, mature, woman. There were all sorts of ways in which Verity Lambert was pushing the envelope.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Well, another cracker of a story!

What began last week with an air of “Sapphire and Steel”, progressed through a nod to “The Wicker Man”, and ended with more than a hint of “Quatermass and the Pit”.

Of course, that is one of the pleasures of these stories. They are not mere rip-offs of earlier shows or authors, but are consciously drawing on traditions of English story-telling in a celebratory way. That was as true of “Black Orchid” as it was of “The Awakening”. That is one of the reasons that made this pairing of stories such a good combination.

I must say I thought the manifestation of the Malice that was growing at the top of the wall in the Tardis was particularly creepy! And, of course, running in tunnels. Where would Doctor Who be without it?

However, something that was increasingly true of the JNT years, was the unfortunate way that the Tardis was demystified to such an extent that half the village could be inside it at the end, and no-one even pauses to comment on where they are.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@arbutus

Ha! PC? Blenkinsop? As I said to (the future) Mrs Blenkinsop: “Expect the unexpected!”

@scaryb

You did see what I was doing up there, didn’t you?

PS. Love the new Sil avatar!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@phaseshift and @everyone

Who would have thought Colin would have aroused this level of interest!

Therefore, should we, perhaps, be guided by this unprecedented level of interest in Colin?

In other words, why not a double dose of Colin!

We are all up to watching and commenting on two stories simultaneously.

After a frenzy of double dipping Colin, we will be psychologically primed and ready for 23 August!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

Mind you, the country of my birth has fared no better. The Australian outfits for the 2010 Commonwealth Games. Oh dear!

This is not the only reason I emigrated, of course…

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

As the Commonwealth Games kick off in Glasgow, it made me wonder if the Scottish uniforms this year (#28847) were an aberration. In the basis of this photo of the 1998 uniforms, not so much an aberration after all. Yikes!

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@purofilion

Welcome to Sherlock. I confess to loving that show. It is Moffat and Gatiss being really clever and having lots of fun with Conan Doyle.

But a word of caution. As it is a mystery series, the show abounds with clues that pay off in later episodes. For this reason, you have to be very strict about avoiding spoilers. Not just the spoilers on the web, but I would even advise not telling anyone you know or work with that you are watching it, as they will inevitably (even if inadvertently) spill the beans.

Enjoy.

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@whisht

@blenkinsopthebrave ‘s impassioned plea kinda tugged at my heart.

Aw, shucks…

<Blenkinsop snuffles, reaches for handkerchief, and noisily blows nose>

[blenkinsopthebrave @replies]

@fatmaninabox – Many thanks!

[Author]

Posts