Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
24 October 2013 at 17:32 #19226
@craig, (Emperor) @phaseshift, @jimthefish, @shazzbot, (Time Lords) @ et al,
Do polls inevitably lead to trolls? Perhaps not. But…
There has been some discussion on this thread about the future direction of the website, whether to run polls, whether to keep the site for “core members”, whether to change the site so as to provide more input from the large number of members who rarely post, and so on.
From my own perspective, one of the reasons I come to this site and not others goes back to its origins. It was set up to provide a space (perhaps even a “haven”) from the ugly, trollish behaviour that was so common on the Guardian site. There were a core of posters on that site that engaged with each other with wit, intelligence, and civility. It was, I think, @phaseshift who categorised that core as “Enthusiasts”. And what they had in common was a commitment to ignore the trollish one-word responses like “crap”, and engage in detailed discussion and conversation. Those posts and posters had in common, not only enthusiasm, but wide knowledge (on all sorts of things), wit, and a generosity of spirit; but also, in a very important sense, a type of gentility that was exceptional in the often uncivilised world of web commentary.
And so this site was born. While there is now talk about “who” it should be for, I would rather focus on what distinguishes this site from others. It has been commented upon that while the site boasts hundreds of members only the same few tend to regularly post. That is true, but partly because active participation operates in a self-selective way. Regular posters are attracted to the type of site it is–that is, one with all the attributes I have referred to above. If they wants to engage in the less-civilised rough-and-tumble of other Doctor Who sites (and there are many, all of which provide a slightly different and unique appeal) then they do so. And there are some who contribute here regularly, but also contribute to other sites, just as there are some who only come here. And there are many members who enjoy “lurking” and not actively participating precisely because they like the tone, nature and content of the collective discussion on the site (a number of members have come on once to say just that).
So, in all the discussion, of core members and changing the site to embrace a wider number of participants, I would tend to shift the emphasis from the members to the nature of the site itself.
It remains, for me at least, a wonderful, funny, enlightening, and civilised place. Of course, in some respects, it has already lost some of the brilliance of the conversation that the core members here engaged in back on the Guardian site. I can recall fabulous posts on episodes that alluded to complex scientific theory, literary analysis, and contextual historical knowledge, that is less common these days. Why? perhaps partly because the Guardian site, where so many of us “met”, was only once a week, and only for a few weeks a year. It is hard to be that dazzling every single day (although @htpbdet and @phaseshift come close). And some, like @whohar, and @juniperfish, and others, who were active each week on the old Guardian site for the few times each year it was up, are less regular (but still brilliant) when they do appear.
But this site has also grown in ways none of us predicted when @craig set it up. And yet it still retains all the qualities that the “enthusiasts” brought with them from the Guardian site. That is no mean achievement.
24 October 2013 at 14:01 #19214Dear incontinent one, there are some things we just don’t want to know about!
24 October 2013 at 02:39 #19184Oh, yee of little faith! OK, I suppose I will have to come up with a different bonkers theory.
Not better, of course (what could be?) but different.
23 October 2013 at 16:26 #19140Actually, I was, as a 12 year-old, a viewer of the very first episode back when it was screened in Australia in 1964 (just after its English debut). And I have grown up and grown old with the show.
It all depends on how it is done.
Knowing the way Moffat writes, whatever he does he will do it with heart-strings being tugged and hearts soaring.
Of course, my idea may also be the result of caffeine-induced delirium…
23 October 2013 at 14:54 #19135I like the idea of a trinity of past, present and future Docs on screen together
So do I. Reading the recent posts, and fortified by a morning espresso, I just re-watched parts of “The Name of the Doctor”, and I think it is entirely possible that the Hurt Doctor is not only a future Doctor, but the LAST Doctor–the Doctor that the Great Intelligence refers to in the past, whose end came in a minor skirmish that was too much for the old man. The problem (for the 11th Doctor–and for us the audience) is that this is ultimately what the Doctor has (or potentially will) become, someone who really is “blood-soaked”.
To go back to my point about the use of words in the mini trailer (ie, “lives” and “our future”) I wonder if, in some way that I haven’t figured out yet, the entire succession of Doctors (the separate “lives”) are threatened, and that, in some time-wimey Moffat way, the only solution to this terrible potential future of a blood-soaked Doctor is for the Doctor is to completely and utterly re-write the past (in order to undo the actions of the “last” Doctor, the Hurt Doctor) so that the previous Doctors (somewhat like Rory) have never existed, but are “alive” as long as we remember them.
In a way, such a resolution would tie into my 4th wall theory. As the show (and the Doctor) goes forward, it is in a unverse where the previous Doctors never existed, but one where they exist in our (ie, the audience’s) memories, and survive (like the lost episodes) as memories.
Time for another espresso, and more thought.
22 October 2013 at 19:13 #19072and Canada too! Hurrah!
Mind you…Mrs Blenkinsop and I are mulling over a quick trip to London in late November!
21 October 2013 at 23:49 #1901221 October 2013 at 20:09 #18965You may be right my friend (although you did leave the policeman’s ear intact in the Hurt mock-up on the right, did you not?), but…I just don’t see it.
But…in the spirit of bonkers theorising…why would they do it? I am really not sure I want them to rewrite “An Unearthly Child” in the 50th. I think that would be a real disservice to the integrity of the show. The one time when they tried to do it (“The Remembrance of the Daleks”) was awful…for me, anyway.
21 October 2013 at 19:22 #18956If that’s not John Hurt playing the Policeman I’ll eat my own beard!
I fear you may have to find some suitable condiments to go with the beard. I can sort of see why you think the policeman looks like Hurt, but I really think this is simply a Reg Cranfield look-a-like who has been heavily CGI’d along with everyone else in the mini trailer. Just as with every other character in the mini trailer, I think he is simply there to allude to the history of the show.
<Now to go off and take up @scaryb‘s challenge to dust-off my 4th wall theory….>
21 October 2013 at 17:18 #1893621 October 2013 at 16:26 #18926The chinstrap on the policeman, Oswin Oswald refers to the Doctor as “the chin”… Is there the potential for s completely new bonkers “chin” theory?
21 October 2013 at 14:46 #18914Just awoke to find a crazy level of forensic attention being paid to the faces in the mini trailer.
Hate to say this, but I think it is simply that the CGI process enhances (and simultaneously distorts) the original TV images. So I think the policeman is BASED ON the original policeman; same with Hartnell, Baker, even Tennant (who looks rather unreal as the camera flys past him).
The only faces that come across as “real” are Matt Smith and Jenna Coleman, and it may be as simple as the fact that they were the only “real” actors used in the making of the mini trailer.
Am personally still hoping the face in the globe is Susan, but will admit it comes across as a strange CGI amalgam of Susan and Sarah Jane.
I realise this all sounds like a theory LESS insane than what is actually going on…perhaps the result of being affected by the strange air of Canadian sobriety I find myself in.
20 October 2013 at 14:51 #18833Hello @geoffers. Agree that the reflection in the globe is Susan. The juxtaposition with Clara and her leaf revives my hope that it will turn out that Clara is daughter of the Doctor and River, and mother of Susan. Talking of River, she is notable by her absence in the mini trailer.
20 October 2013 at 03:12 #18800@hudsey. Glad you agree that the words in the mini trailer are really very important. Totally with you on the notion that it may all be hinting at a restart of the entire timeline. Moffat likes to hide stuff in plain sight. I suspect that he has revealed quite a lot with the spoken word in this mini trailer.
Am sort of surprised that no one else is commenting on this. Oh, everyone in the UK is probably asleep. Well, yes, that would account for it.
19 October 2013 at 22:44 #18790Like everyone else, I have watched the mini trailer, oh, well a “few” times, and a couple of points in the voiceover struck me as rather odd.
“I’ve been running all my lives”. In the plural. Why in the plural? He is one Doctor…isn’t he?
“Our future depends…” Who is the “our”? Humanity? The Timelords? The Doctors (in the plural)?
I don’t know why, but I think the words used might be significant.
Of course, I could also be looking for meaning where there is none.
17 October 2013 at 16:19 #18646P.S. unfortunately, I wouldn’t have a clue about accessing black-download sites. Which is a real cause for concern as 23 November approaches in the Who-barren wilds of Ontario!
17 October 2013 at 15:58 #18645It is not so much the delay in season 8, as the form of season 8. Might they decide to have a VERY few number of 60-75 minute shows instead of a season as we have been used to? The suits at the BBC might reason that they could make it more financially viable that way and pick up extra revenue through DVD sales if each story was released independently of each other. Who knows? But one thing is for sure. They are not releasing the 50th in the cinemas as a favour to the fans, but are seeking a broader audience for the future of the show. How they package that future in 2014 and beyond could have real implications for storytelling possibilities.
[Note to self after reviewing my posts above: retirement is no excuse for typos!]
17 October 2013 at 15:14 #18640Forgiven, my inattentive friend. While retirement is everything is is cracked up to be, and I heartily recommend it to all, there is the downside that the trips to the Qantas Club Lounge will become rather like the lost Hartnell and Troughton episodes–wonderful memories but sadly lost in time.
I really like your notion that the 50th is a trial for cinema. Whether Doctor Who would work outside of a TV format is something I an not sure about–although I do confess a fondness for Peter Cushing’s rather daffy “Daleks Invasion Earth 2150AD”.
Indeed, given all that has been said about the relationship between the BBC suits, the showrunners and the audience, I think there is a real question about what sort of format season 8 might take. What started out as a weekly 25 minute show in 1963 has already changed its format considerably. Who knows where the format might go in the future.
17 October 2013 at 14:54 #18638Fortunately, the many trips to Canada over the years prior to this relocation means that the blenkinsop wardrobe is chock full of winter woolies! Of far more concern is the lack of availability of high quality Australian shiraz!
17 October 2013 at 14:49 #18637Yes, it is a permanent move. However, upon recently discovering that Who-friendly Australia is screening the 50th at cinemas throughout the country and Who-deprived Canada is oblivious to the 50th (even BBC Canada chose not to acquire Doctor Who as part of its line-up) I may be tempted back for a quick Who fix next month!
As for the question of were Hurt fits, I would rule out 2-3 for the reason that most of the audience are not familiar with BG Who, and it would take too much exposition and explanation. He could go with pre-Hartnell as it opens up all sorts of possibilities about sending the show off in a different direction, but even there, the Hartnell Doctor is not as loved and familiar to the mainstream audience the 50th is aimed at as he is to those of us on this forum. Which leaves 8-9 and the Time War. Or…something we just haven’t thought of yet.
16 October 2013 at 22:19 #18608I am liking your theory more and more. Particularly the fact that it provides a coherent alternative to the Time War focus of the 50th that most people have accepted. But…when you say that the “smith doc cannot remember the experiences of the tennant doc in the anniversary episode”, I am not sure where you are getting that from. After all, we haven’t even had a trailer to make such a supposition. Is there a plot synopsis out there that I have missed?
15 October 2013 at 17:57 #18556Hello @janetteb. Yes, indeed, I have decamped for milder climes (you must pay attention, @scaryb!)
I believe, @janetteb, that you will be well served in the unseasonal warmth of my former home (as we both know, Australia has always been very civilised when it comes to Doctor Who), although whether Doctor Who will penetrate the rugged wilds of Tasmania, where, if memory serves correct, the lovely @whohar is now resident, is another question.
For my own part, I am exploring the Who potential of the wilds of Ontario. Apart from finding out that Doctor Who screens on the Space channel (which I do not subscribe to), information on what is happening with regards to the 50th in the Canadian colonies is rather elusive. If anyone else can enlighten me, please do.
14 October 2013 at 20:02 #18516Indeed I do continue to admire the new look as it progresses in your talented hands. I note that you are going to “pop open” a bottle of wine. Does this mean that the screw-top wine bottle has not made it to the Sceptred Isle yet? It is a true advance in my book. I recall using its invention as the main thing that had made an appreciable difference to my “work-lifestyle balance” during an otherwise pointless human relations focus group run by an idiot Moderator (who insisted we reflect on the said work-lifestyle balance). How civilised I find retirement, in the knowledge that I do not have to attend any more “focus groups”.
14 October 2013 at 14:43 #18475Just awoke in one of the northern colonies, fearful that I would have to navigate a cluttered front page completely unaided by wine from the blenkinsop cellar (which, I hasten to add, is reserved for evening viewings of the site), and, lo and behold, a simple, clear and elegant page!
All hail the Emperor!
14 October 2013 at 02:44 #18447I like your theory as well as @pedant. (don’t ask me why we have to refer to him that way…it just is.)
The the only thing about your theory that I wonder about is that when the Hartnell Doctor first encounters the Daleks it really does seem like the first time. But…it would be entirely possible for the Hurt Doctor to also encounter them in a timey wimey way. So…yes! Maybe!
13 October 2013 at 15:55 #18424Perhaps I am missing something fundamental to a web designer, but would one simple list on the right side bar, called Recent Activity, work?
As there are many of us operating on non-UK time, when we wake up and turn on our computers a lot of activity has taken place. In the past I used to look straight at the right side bar and read the posts. Now, it is broken up, so I go to the Activity link at the top of the page to see what has been happening. I think what I am referring to is that the way UK posters read the site (more “in real time”) and the way those of us in the colonies in both hemispheres read the site is slightly different. At least, that is the way I see it. I may be as wrong as most of my bonkers predictions turn out to be.
And, of course, many, many thanks for all your ongoing work.
12 October 2013 at 02:55 #18311Now that is an excellent theory. Definitely agree that “Day of the Daleks” is being alluded to. Whatever happens, I am certain it will relate back to BG Who in some important respect.
11 October 2013 at 03:09 #18222is it complete coincidence that 7.2′s Big Bad was the GI?
Indeed.
It now all makes sense. Why re-introduce the GI to an audience who, for the most part, would never have been aware of the GI?
For this reason alone, everyone (even @jimthefish !!) should be watching “The Web of Fear”.
I am not sure that the connection between the GI and new Who will necessarily carry over into the 50th special–that seems to be headed in a different direction…the Kennedy assassination and breaking the 4th wall, of course! But it may continue to play out in season 8.
As @scaryb has pointed out, this is more new old Who than has been discovered in the previous 25 years. A cause for celebration, if ever there was one.
11 October 2013 at 00:26 #18199“The Web of Fear” AND “”The Enemy of the World”!!!
Happiness reigns in the Blenkinsop household. Indeed, Mrs Blenkinsop is all acquiver.
10 October 2013 at 20:01 #18138I’d much rather have new Who than rediscovered old Who
Really? There, my fishy friend, we differ. I am willing to admit that it may be age talking, but I grew up with the show, and episodes that I dimly remember, but have not seen since their original screening, are stories that I hunger to see again.
I think this might be the time for everyone to watch the remaining episodes of lost stories on the DVD collection “Lost in Time”. To see the whole story of “The Crusade”, or “The Daleks’ Master Plan” or…so much else, would be simply wonderful.
New Who, and Moffat and Matt Smith–none of it would be here if it wasn’t for the wonder of old Who. To have at least some of it available again is, perhaps, the best celebration of the 50th we could have.
<which doesn’t mean I don’t want the trailer now. And I mean now!>
7 October 2013 at 14:34 #17958please start posts in Spoilers with some kind of junk text of your choosing, but it needs to be up to 50 characters on the same line
allworkandnoplaymakesJackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesJackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesJackadullboy
No spoiler. Just testing.
30 September 2013 at 19:08 #17713You do realise how many extraordinary bonkers theories that fit the criteria of “more insane than what’s actually happening” have been canvassed on this forum, don’t you Dan? Of course you do.
There have been theories on what was happening in seasons 5, 6 and 7 that were probably much better than what actually happened. The truly wonderful red tie/blue tie theory would fit that bill admirably. But there have been so many others.
And are you after bonkers theories for the 50th only? Or bonkers theories relating to past seasons? Or bonkers theories about characters? This forum has them all.
So, Dan, why not just submit a collective entry for the whole forum!
And even as the 50th approaches, the capacity for bonkers theories remains unabated. For example, don’t get me started on the absolute necessity of the return of Canton…
24 September 2013 at 16:41 #17548Clearly, I am not the only one frustrated by the lack of a trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5pSdtFgzxs
23 September 2013 at 16:17 #17537Just in case that rumour of a trailer on Monday is correct, please keep the recorder working for those of us outside of the UK.
18 September 2013 at 23:04 #17429I share your frustration on the trailer. How are we expected to come up with bonkers theories without a trailer, dammit!
Solution?…Alcohol. Works every time.
17 September 2013 at 23:57 #17418There’s a “Favourite” function?
Oh yes, now I see it. Hold on…it is spelt in the American manner, as “Favorite”.
On the basis of spelling alone, I favour discarding it.
13 September 2013 at 21:08 #17213If we run with the idea that the title of “Day of the Doctor” is meant to allude to “Day of the Daleks” (a good chance I’d say), and since both the latter and Moffat are heavily into time-wimeyness, and since there is an allusion in the poster to “Bad Wolf”, is there a bonkers theory that can be inferred? (Reluctantly, I will accept @bluesqueakpip‘s assertion that Moffat has quietly jettisoned the Blinovitch Limitation effect).
Well, “Bad Wolf” was Rose seeding space and time with the graffiti so that she could eventually save the Doctor. “The Day of the Daleks” dealt with a vaguely similar paradox. Could it be that a message was sent by the 10th to the 11th? Or even the other way around? Moffat has talked about picking up on something from TEH. Although I would love it to be an explanation of the missing second floor (sorry @pedant!) is there anything in TEH that sets the scene for the re-introduction of 10?
No, I don’t think I am making any progress on this. Maybe it’s time to go to the pub.
12 September 2013 at 17:40 #17190Brilliant Grand Theft Auto -Dalek link. Made my day.
And speaking of your links and photos, I salute the fact that you have, single-handed, provided us with more Doctor Who enjoyment in the lead-up to the 50th than has been provided by the entire BBC.
11 September 2013 at 23:39 #17178although my memory may be failing, in one so ancient, but my memory of watching the movie when it first came out was that the line was:
“You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!”
(which sort of fits the poster)
11 September 2013 at 15:21 #17165You may be right about Moffat simply quietly dumping the Blinovitch Limitation Effect. On the other hand, does not the Effect come into play in explaining why he can never go back to see Amy and Rory in 1930s New York? Is it the reason he should never have gone to Trenzilor? I am simply not sure.
11 September 2013 at 14:20 #17163Somewhat wary about posting this here (as opposed to the Spoilers page), but since the official picture for The Day of the Doctor has been posted here…
Bad Wolf…well I wasn’t expecting that. But it might help explain why Rose (of all the companions) is returning. I am intrigued to see what Moffat (who tends to avoid referencing memes of writers other than himself) makes of Bad Wolf.
The title…”The Day of the Doctor”…reminds me of the Pertwee story “The Day of the Daleks”. It was this story that first introduced the Blinovitch Limitation Effect. Is there a connection? Well, both Bad Wolf and the Blinovitch Limitation Effect go to the heart of the paradoxes of time travel which are at the heart of the show, and so it is only reasonable to assume that Moffat (the master of timey-wimey) would reference both.
On the other hand, Moffat tends to play fast and loose with the Blinovitch Limitation Effect (eg. old and young Kazran embracing in “A Christmas Carol”).
But perhaps there is another reason why he would reference both. There has been much discussion by cast members like Jenna Coleman that the 50th will change everything and send the show off in a new direction. Could it be that the 50th will be explicitly about the Blinovitch Limitation Effect and the paradoxes of time travel (such as Bad Wolf)? By which I mean, will Moffat not simply re-boot the universe (after all, he has already done that in “The Big Bang”) but re-boot the show by finally explaining (or, more to the point, explaining away) the Blinovitch Limitation Effect?
11 September 2013 at 03:51 #17149Trailer?….oh, please!
10 September 2013 at 18:54 #17140Brilliant link to the Van Gogh painting. Had thought exactly that when I first read about it. Clearly, it was painted under the influence of Amy!
Which causes me to reflect on why Richard Curtis is not praised more for that truly wonderful episode.
9 September 2013 at 20:41 #17110The stairwell in Amelia’s house:
No, if you look at the scene where the Doctor and Amy are standing outside her bedroom just prior to the Doctor running outside and leaving for “five minutes”, it is clear that the stairs lead to another floor. And it is also clear that the outside of the house shows the roof to be far too low to accommodate either another floor or even a loft.
Glooped big time: well, I must have missed that. I will seek verification from Mrs Blenkinsop.
The figure standing behind the Pandorica in the British Museum:
It can be seen (in the Big Bang) when Amy emerges from the Pandorica and speaks to Amelia. It is indeed directly behind the sarcophagus, but it is not a shadow–the shadow is on the wall behind the figure. Now, I know that @pedant might say that it is a merely a support of some sort holding up the sarcophagus, but I see a figure robed in black.
And, moreover, given a choice between a shadow (or a loft in Amelia’s house) and “theories more insane than what’s actually happening” I will always opt for the latter!
6 September 2013 at 14:48 #17008Am I the only one thinking that a trailer would be very nice about now? Well, anyway, until it comes along, on the assumption that the special might tie up loose-ends from the Matt Smith years, what might the loose-ends be? I have my own idiosyncratic list:
The Eleventh Hour: I would like an explanation of the stairwell in Amy’s house.
The Pandorica Opens (or was it The Big Bang)?: who was the hooded figure clearly lurking behind the Pandorica in the British Museum?
The Almost People: Whatever happened to the Ganger Doctor?
Day of the Moon: Not a loose-end as such, more of a question (no, more of a plea)…how about a return appearance of Canton?
Somehow, I do not think I will find out the answers to any of them, but one can always hope.
29 August 2013 at 16:13 #16778Hello @janetteb. Forever? Well, that is a very strong word. I am sure I will be back, but only occasionally, not permanently.
Do you know that the lead-up to the move was so chaotic I was even unaware of Sydney exhibition. Drat! And now I am gone! Double drat!
29 August 2013 at 16:09 #16777Hello @bluesqueakpip. Yes, the emigration is permanent. I am literally undertaking the move as I write this, as I am typing from the Admirals Club Lounge at LA, having just finished the first 13 hour leg of the journey. I am on my way (from one overly sunny colony) to the slightly cooler colony to the north of where I (briefly) find myself.
A return to the spirit of Hartnell–now that I would be very much in favour of.
28 August 2013 at 23:20 #16769Greetings all. It has been a while since I have popped by. A bit busy, lately. Retirement, emigration; you know, the usual stuff.
But since I was back in the Qantas Club Lounge (the emigration bit) it seemed only right and proper that I go back online.
I have no idea what has been said here over the last couple of weeks, but has anyone talked about whether SM’s comments about PC’s Doctor arriving as a slightly more irritable Doctor sounds dangerously close to Colin Baker territory? Of course, I (like the rest of us) have faith on both SM and PC to do something far better than that. But 2014 does seem an awfully long way away!
8 August 2013 at 11:11 #15683Hello all. Back from travelling in time and space in the inverted Tardis (smaller on the inside) and (for the moment) out of the Club Lounge.
I thought it was important to say something about the curfuffle on the board a couple of days ago.
@craig said
I guess you could say I’m the one to blame
In all the subsequent posts, no one said anything about that statement. I would like to say that none of us would ber here, indulging in a genuine love of Doctor Who, and, importantly, doing it in an environment that is warm, embracing, and gentle, if it wasn’t for @craig.
The new members of the site may not recall that this site was set up so that there was a place that avoided all the worst aspects of the Guardian Doctor Who blog. There was a core of participants on that site that wanted to share their love and enthusiasm for Doctor Who without the poisonous bile and horribly snarky “humour” of many particiapnts who frequented the Guardian blog. You know what I mean, humour which laughed at people.
One person came forward and offered to do it for us: @craig. And he did (and does) a fabulous job. I am sure he has, well, actual other real world things to do with his life, but there he is, day and night, ensuring that this is a place where there is a generosity of spirit for those people who want to share their ideas, theories, and knowledge of this wonderful show. And the depth of knowledge, the erudition, and the sheer unadulterated enthusiasm of the participants to this site is truly breathtaking. And there is one gatekeeper who ensures that generosity of spirit and gentleness of humour remains at the core of this site. And that person is @craig.
So, no, I do not believe that any blame for anything to do with this site attaches to @craig. I am so incredibly grateful for all he has done, and continues to do, to keep this site going and to provide for us a protected space where enthusiasm, rather than cynicism, and where the humour of gentility, rather than the humour of cruelty (which seems to infect so much of the rest of the web) is allowed to flourish.
So, many thanks, @craig.
And now…I have to go off and engage in more thought on whether Clara really could be the daughter of the Doctor and the mother of Susan (in a timey-wimey way, of course). I suspect that a bottle of Shiraz may be required for this task.
7 August 2013 at 05:37 #15622OK, cannot answer this now, as am in…the Qantas Club Lounge and flight is about to be called (and yes, I am aware that most people on this board probably think I am making up all these references to the Club Lounge, but actually it is true! Unlike Moffat and the Doctor, I do not lie).
Anyway, I may not have read your post correctly, but there was discussion on this board about whether River was with child (but not in the context of your theory–as I understand it).
I have long harboured a belief that…somehow…we will see the offspring of the Doctor. I was attached to the idea of Clara as daughter, and, actually, that may still be feasible under your theory. Maybe. Anyway, have to go. But there is lots to think about.
More later.
-
AuthorPosts
