Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
25 May 2013 at 05:43 #10848
Have been thinking about what I didn’t like about TNOTD.
Practically everything was brilliant, from Hartnell at the beginning to Hurt at the end, but having now seen it a few times, I still feel that the very first scene with the repairmen on Gallifrey did not feel right. Why? Well, it seemed too…modern and colloquial…in terms of the language: “What kind of idiot…” Somehow, for me that jarred with the setting…Gallifrey, and especially with the knowledge that somewhere in the complex at that very same time Hartnell’s Doctor was about to embark on his journey. As someone who remembers Hartnell’s Doctor from the age of 11, I was strangely shocked that someone would refer to him as an idiot.
The second thing about it that did not work for me was that the repairmen did not seem very…well..,Gallifrey to me. It seemed to imply that Gallifrey was just another planet with high-falut’n Timelords who fly around in Tardises at one end of the social hierarchy and blue collar repairmen at the other end. I don’t know…that did not gell with my sense of Gallifrey as it has been represented and alluded to over the years. Perhaps I always envisaged Gallifrey as a planet composed entirely of Timelords.
The final thing that jarred was that the brief scene with, and dialogue of, the repairman reminded me of the hackneyed stage technique in old fashioned plays set in a fine country house where the curtain opens with the servants quickly providing a potted summary of the household and setting the scene for the entrance of the main characters. True, all that was accomplished in one sentence, but that was because we all knew about the main character when he appeared on the scene. It reminded me of that hackneyed playwriting technique.
Everything else in the episode? Brilliant. Utterly brilliant. But…for me at least…the opening with the “servant beneath stairs” just didn’t work.
What a complaining old bugger I am turning into!
23 May 2013 at 12:17 #10500Oh, and apologies if this has been dealt with by others.
23 May 2013 at 12:17 #10498OK, too many re-viewings of the last episode and too much wine has led to the following:
Who is Clarence DeMarco? Why does he know so much about the Doctor? about Trenzalore? about the whisper men?
And let’s not forget that Madame Vastra keeps him alive. so there could be a return appearance.
That’s it. Time for bed.
22 May 2013 at 05:29 #10319Welcome @ossian1898!
Where to start… I think you are going to get many varied and personal suggestions, based on when the poster started watching. Although I started watching back with Hartnell, I would probably suggest “The War Games” with Troughton. The whole backstory of who the Doctor is and the Timelords starts here, in many ways. It is also a really clever story that starts out as one sort of story and ends up as another. It is hard to give any more details without spoiling the surprises–and it is a story with lots of surprises. Enjoy!
21 May 2013 at 12:49 #10176Perhaps I could follow up my last post with the thought that what we say say here should always be in complete ignorance of…that other place.
It’s not a competition. It’s about our mutual love of the show.
Time for bed.
21 May 2013 at 12:17 #10170Not all information passes through the portals of the Quantum Club lounge I see. Ref an extremely long tussle, sorry – discussion on the G-blog a couple of weeks ago (JttCotT I think) which involved many definitions and disagreements about the uses of DEM and Chekhov’s Gun tropes in the episode (you can check it out, or if you’re wise, leave it your imagination – many good posts were lost that day!!). Chekhov’s duck was born from the wreckage
Ah, I understand. I gave up on the G blog long ago for the simple reason that I decided that this is the home of civilised conversation.
Anything I say here is in complete ignorance of…that other place.
Which is a real shame, and @danmartinuk did so much to bring real Enthusiasts of Doctor Who together.
21 May 2013 at 09:30 #10153I don’t want to be…well…a pedant…but I think you mean Chekhov’s gun.
And I still maintain that what is not shown allows for ambiguity, my pedant friend.
21 May 2013 at 06:11 #10140@Shazbott.
While Clara suggested Hartnell take the other Tardis, we do not know that he took her advice. You may be right, but there is still ambiguity.
21 May 2013 at 03:11 #10135Oh, and looking again at my last sentence, perhaps some advice on grammar wouldn’t go astray!
21 May 2013 at 02:56 #10134Hi @craig. A boring technical question. I have noticed recently that when I refresh the page on either my iPad or iPhone (which I usually only use while commuting to work), while it does refresh and take me to the latest coment on the page I was viewing, if I try to scroll up the page it simply jumps back to the latest entry. But I do not experience this problem on my PC. Could it be an Apple problem? Has anyone on the site else experienced this?
20 May 2013 at 23:46 #10127Ah, but that was only plan B!
Who knows, I might even be able to revive the Kennedy theory! (although against increasingly long odds, I admit)
20 May 2013 at 23:43 #10125I suppose that makes sense in a logical sort of way but for a person who can visit the site of their own death etc, it’s entirely possible to break a promise you’ve not yet made. I think.
There might be a very questionable argument there. My poor theory!
No. I agree with you. You have convinced me that one should not doubt (or allow Fishes to encourage you to doubt!) one’s first instincts.
20 May 2013 at 23:32 #10122To the Doctor, a daughter…
And Doc and River begat Clara who begat Susan….
And how long have I been banging on with that theory? Good to see Enthusiasts of the Fish and anti-Fish variety finally coming on board.
20 May 2013 at 12:52 #9996@jimthefish. Oh, how outrageously logical you are! Yes, I just watched the episode again, and you are quite right, you cannot break a promise before it has been made. Oh well, bang goes that theory. It was probably a bit too thin at either end.
On the other hand, there are 6 months in which to come up with more bonkers alternatives…
20 May 2013 at 11:50 #9990Hi @satsumajoe. A kindred spirit! Have forgotten you had already proposed this. Apologies. Yes, I think we are onto something.
Back in “The Remembrance of the Daleks” The Doctor intimated that he, along with Omega and Rassilon, had developed the Hand of Omega. (I hope I am remembering that correctly.) Anyway, assuming I am, and given that the Timelords themselves are a very ambiguous lot, morally speaking, I wonder if the Hand of Omega, and the immortality of the Timelords, came at a terrible price? Do I have any proof for this? Well, no, but it is amazing what an evening at one’s local wine bar can produce.
20 May 2013 at 11:31 #9988@chickenelly. Your bonkers theory is under copyright? Or you have copyrighted “bonkers theory”? I think not!
I agree that it sounds very logical. I just wonder if it will work without the participation of Eccleston? @bluesqueakpip, while it would be nice if Eccleston had agreed to do a regeneration, I fear that may be wishful thinking.
Which leads to my (current) bonkers theory (which is not under copyright, but is thin at one end, thick in the middle and thin at the other end) that John Hurt is the timelord before Hartnell–the reason that Hartnell ran away in the first place, and the reason that Hartnell called himself the Doctor. Current theory is still that he (Hurt) helped create the Hand of Omega, and in that sense, the timelords themselves.
p.s. @chickenelly. I think your current avatar is simply brilliant!
20 May 2013 at 08:58 #9967Inspired by your “Pertwee and a good red” reference, Mrs Blenkinsop and I are off to our local wine bar, for it is the end of the day, and there is much more for the two of us to discuss about “The Name of the Doctor”. I briefly thought of going as the 3rd Doctor, but even I recognise that ruffle shirts are best left back in the early ’70s.
20 May 2013 at 08:49 #9966Who food for a Who bash…brilliant!
There was the ham and eggs that the Doctor cooked for Craig in “The Lodger”, which Craig thought was awesome. And as @whohar reminds me, Pertwee did indeed enjoy a good red. (Come to think of it, perhaps it was Pertwee who set me on a path that led to the Qantas Club Lounge–not to mention the blenkinsop cellar).
Oh, and @whohar, can I second your thoughts about comments? As The Doctor said in “Cold Blood”, we have to strive to be “the best of humanity”.
20 May 2013 at 03:31 #995312+9=21
Moffat ends his short piece in the Guardian (supposedly referring to the video chat between MS and DT) with the cryptic:
“Ten plus 11 gives you…”
Hmmm…
20 May 2013 at 01:18 #9950Indeed I did love the episode. As I said (#9743) just after the episode finished in the colonies:
“Everything about the episode was wonderful. Everything.”
Back to who Hurt might be. Yes, I had thought of the potential Doctor between 8 and 9, who, presumably, fought/ended the Time War. But it also ocurred to me that he might go back to the beginning. If I recall correctly, the Doctor stated–in “Remembrance of the Daleks–that he helped Omega and Rassilon devise the Hand of Omega. Now, Hurt could be that third timelord, or even Omega himself.
Still more thought required.
20 May 2013 at 00:34 #9940Well, after a restful sleep, I have awakened to the detritus of the previous night. Time to clean up the makeshift Club Lounge in the apartment. Ah, but what an episode! As usual, Moffat confounds us all!
Brilliant use of the previous Doctors. As for who Hurt is:
Doctor: “I said he was me. I never said he was the Doctor.”
Clara: “I don’t understand.”
Doctor: “My name. My real name. That is not the point. The name I chose is The Doctor”.
OK, while I have been plowing through all the posts, apologies for missing those who have already discussed this, but: presumably the only known names that are big enough and bad enough are Valeyard and Omega. And Valeyard comes at the end of the Doctor’s time stream, while Omega comes at the beginning (if one reads time in a linear fashion).
More thought required.
19 May 2013 at 11:35 #9743Episode has just finished in the colonies. Hurrah!
blenkinsop was wrong with his theory, but, hurrah! not only does it maintain blenkinsop’s unbroken record of false predictions, but what actually happened was BRILLIANT!
Everything about the episode was wonderful. Everything.
Since I am in the blenkinsop version of the Qantas Club Lounge in the blenkinsop apartment, and rather a lot of the free Club Lounge wine has been consumed, I will need a little time to compose a thoughtful response.
Oh! Mrs Blenkinsop’s announcement of the flight to Singapore has just come through, so I have to rush. In touch soon.
17 May 2013 at 09:55 #9416Fabulous! You made my day!
17 May 2013 at 03:46 #9395Well, I confess that your bonkers theory does have the strength of a good cliffhanger into the 50th. But, although I cannot put my finger on exactly why, the idea of the Bad Doctor, just doesn’t seem, well, right to me. A Doctor who doubts, a Doctor who has a dark side that is brought out under exceptional cirumstances (ie, Toby Jones, and they have done that), or a Doctor who can seem to be stern and unfeeling–all of these I can buy, but a genuinely Dark Doctor? I just cannot reconcile that with everything the the past 50 years of “Doctor Who” conjurs up for me. But, I suppose, that does qualify as a “game changer”. Just not a game changer I feel all that comfortable with.
Which leaves me with a fundamentally good Doctor, who has been (ever since Moffat started writing him) a lonely figure. Moffat’s Doctor started back in “The Girl in the Fireplace” being described as a lonlely child who has carried that loneliness with him. In my bonkers theory, the game changer is that he discovers the child he never knew (we know he had a grand-daughter, but not a child) Moffat timey-wimey. I think the game changer will be when he realises Clara is that child, and if I am right, there won’t be a dry eye in the house.
But how that sets it up for the 50th, I confess I have no idea!
I hope you enjoy the episode from your vantage point in the southern extremities of our colonies on Sunday evening. I will be raising a glass to you and all my fine friends on this board. And it will be EXTREMELY difficult to resist reading this board on Sunday morning colonial time when everyone else will have already seen the episode. But I must resist. I must!!
17 May 2013 at 01:47 #9390With the last episode imminent, I suppose now is the time to nail our colours to the mast with our personal bonkers theory. I will (you will no doubt be pleased to here) put my Ted Peate cricket theory to one side.
I will, however, still stick to my theory that Clara is the daughter of the Doctor and River, which I have been banging on about for quite a while.
Mrs Blenkinsop and I came up with an incredibly complicated explanation of how this could be explained last night in our local wine bar, that involved Gilbert Ryle’s theory of the ghost in the machine, Marshall McLuhan’s ideas about the relationship between electronic media and reality, and, with the aid of some shiraz and a quite nice chardonnay, we felt we were getting closer to explaining how Clara could have somehow been born in the library and yet became flesh and blood.
Over breakfast, it seemed less brilliant. But how often the things one says in a wine bar seem less brilliant over breakfast.
Anyway, I still remain attached to the Clara-as-daughter bonkers theory.
14 May 2013 at 23:14 #9135@phaseshift, @et al,
Preparations for watching the season finale in the Blenkinsop abode are now reaching their final stages.
No being able to arrange an international flight, for that date, has required that Mrs Blenkinsop and I fit out the Blenkinsop apartment in the style of the Qantas Club Lounge. Various bottles of alcohol (wines and spirits are in plentiful supply) have been set out on the counter, a buffet of cold cuts has been arranged, and the second TV has been set to play the day’s news programmes (but with the sound down so as not to interfere with the show).
Mrs Blenkinsop has finished recording the boarding announcements, which are set to play at regular intervals throughout transmission. The sound has not been turned down on these, as we are aiming for verisimilitude, you understand.
A lot of thought was given to the other question of other passengers, who are an unavoidable, although quite often undesirable, element of any Club Lounge. It was decided, after some considerable thought, to resist the temptation to crowd the Blenkinsop apartment with examples of actual humanity. Rather we have arranged our life-sized cardboard cut-outs of all 11 Doctors, a sample of Companions, and, as the Club Lounge is often crowded, a few cardboard Klingons from the hidden Next Generation collection we keep in the wardrobe, and of course, the treasured life-size Counselor Troi cut-out.
All in all, preparations are proceeding satisfactorily.
14 May 2013 at 12:09 #9032@jimthefish. The cricket theory was..a joke. Sorry. Colonial humour.
Off to bed.
14 May 2013 at 07:14 #9000Slacking off? I think we are both in fine form!
The joys of the Qantas Club Lounge are in temporary abeyance, alas.
But even now I am working on a cunning plan to get myself back into its hallowed halls.
14 May 2013 at 06:41 #8997I am sure Fortesque will enlighten you on Ted Peate when he arrives with the bricks.
I am still keeping Kennedy in reserve for the 50th!
<thinks–maybe Ted Peate was the second gunman on the grassy knoll. Hmm…more thought required.>
14 May 2013 at 04:46 #8993@janetteb. What? No support for the cricket theory? But I can even tie it in to the title of the episode.
Scene: The fields of Trenzalore. The Doctor appears. The umpire–Simeon, of course–demands: “What is your name?” The Doctor, with a steely glance, replies: “Peate…Ted Peate”, and, pausing only to change into cricket whites, strides purposefully onto the pitch.
No…?
14 May 2013 at 01:46 #8990Once more, nervously emerging from behind the sofa, I see that we remain innocent of major spoilers. Hurrah!
OK, as it seems that many of us are finding it difficult to come up with last minute bonkers theories for next week without straying into spoiler territory, I think this is the time to recycle a theory I previously aired on the Guardian at the end of s6, when Dorium Maldover warned the Doctor of “the fall of the 11th” on “the fields of Tenzalore”.
Now, we know that time can be re-written, and Moffat assures us that next week will be a game changer. Think about those words…a game changer…a “game” changer.
So, perhaps we have erroneously assumed that “the fall of the 11th” referred to the Doctor. BUT…
Is that what is really meant by “the fall of the 11th” on “the fields of Trenzalore”? What if it is actually referring to that momentous date, the 29th of August 1882, which has gone down in history as the date of “the death of cricket”, when the 11th man on the English side, Ted Peate, was bowled out, and Australia won the Lord’s cricket match for the first time. (A rousing “hurrah” on behalf of the colonials.) After the match, the Sporting Times published the following obituary:
“In Affectionate Remembrance of ENGLISH CRICKET, which died at the Oval on 29 August 1882, Deeply lamented by a large circle of sorrowing friends and acquaintances R.I.P.
N.B. – The body will be cremated and the ashes taken to Australia.”
So, fellow enthusiasts, it is obvious really. By some timey-wimey shenanigans, the Doctor will replace Ted Peate, and will…wait for it…go in to bat for England!
Time can be re-written!
<runs back behind sofa>
13 May 2013 at 07:05 #8874Emerging from behind the sofa (nervously and only momentarily) I am relieved to see that the spoiler of the next episode remains far away from this site.
@bobbingbird. I started to have a strange conspiratorial feeling (and I am responding to your comments on the other page regarding s7 as much as to your post above) that the leak might actually have been planned by the BBC suits, as a way of capturing an even larger audience than it would have otherwise. There has, after all, been a huge amount of publicity generated through the mainstream press. And studios are quite likely to go ballistic and call in the lawyers in response to events like this. But the response by the BBC has been very softly, softly.
Posters have commented on the reference at the end of “Nightmare” to “see you next Wednesday”. If the Beeb does decide to fast-track the screening to…say…Wednesday, well…
No, I am being too conspiratorial. Or am I…?
<nervously returns behind sofa>
12 May 2013 at 22:52 #8815As you point out, we are none of us perfect. But what unites us is the love of a wonderful show.
And it is that love that makes me feel I might be joining @chickenelly behind the sofa for the next week. Perhaps peeking out tentatively when I feel strong enough. For although the wonderful @craig will be there to protect us from blatant spoilers, I have a feeling that because enough bits and pieces of what is coming have already been revealed to a lot of us, it will have the inevitable effect of influencing our bonkers speculations. So that by the time it actually airs, a large part of the surprise will have gone.
I hope not, but you never know.
So, @shazzbot, for the moment, comradely greetings from behind the sofa.
12 May 2013 at 21:34 #8795I think that people on this site (and @craig in particular) should, in light of the massive potential for spoliers to appear because of the dvds going out early, seriously consider avoiding even this site until next week’s episode. Why am I suggesting something so drastic?
Because it is highly likely that some troll will post the spoilers and it will be too late, particularly if it is done while the moderators are asleep.
In fact this site has not been immune already, since @shazbott revealed the end of Broadchurch, which was, frankly, unforgiveable.
There are many of us who have not yet seen that programme, and were looking forward to it. That experience has now been riuned. I can only hope that the reveal was a joke. If so, it was in poor taste, as it sets up assumptions in the mind of the viewer. If it was not a joke it was unforgiveable.
If that can happen, so can what I am suggesting about the The Name of the Doctor. Not everyone on the web have the principles, scruples and consideration for others that most of us have on this site.
I feel very sad about what is currently happening, but I am looking forward to a cracking post-episode discussion with friends next week.
12 May 2013 at 11:47 #8701OK, we finally got to see it in the colonies.
And what was my response?
Well, I think everyone on this site knows how much I love this show, but…I really and truly thought this was…rubbish!
Sorry, but I did.
I thought Matt Smith was brilliant! His portrayal of the Doctor vs. the Cyberised Doctor was awesome. both at the chess board and in the computerised world the two sides of him inhabited.
But the rest? The amusement park setting? The punishment detail? The children? Clara as the military commander? No. Sorry.
Both Mrs Blenkinsop and I noted on how much it reminded us of the Hartnell episode “The Chase”, where the Doctor and Ian and Barbara are on the run from the Daleks and they end up in a wax museum with Frankenstein’s monster and Dracula. And it was all done for laughs. And, terrible as this sounds, we both thought “The Chase” (which is very hokey) actually did it better!
Crikey, I do so wish I could have liked it better. But…were the Cybermen really more frightening? Really? Think back to the Cyberman in Underhendge that attacks Amy and the Doctor. That really was frightening.
OK, I will watch it again. And again, because that’s who I am. An enthusiast. But…
Believe me, I want to be proven that I am being too harsh.
12 May 2013 at 08:41 #8684@janetteb. True, and, of course, “Nobody dies” is also from “Forests of the Dead”. Just re-watched the River-in-the-Library two-parter. CAL…CLARA. I know many people have already talked about this, but that was back when Clara was introduced in “Asylum”. Re-watching River’s entrance (and exit) again, where the whole issue of the Doctor’s name was introduced, makes me wonder if there really might be a CAL/CLARA connection.
12 May 2013 at 06:21 #8681@lula. Great idea about the painting! Will have to go back and re-watch “An Unearthly Child”.
You are spoilt by BBC America (and I don’t mean it in the “spoiler” sense!) with the re-runs, the shows dedicated to each Doctor, etc. I envy you.
12 May 2013 at 04:09 #8674SPOILER……………………………………………………………………
BEWARE…………………………………………………………………..
OK. Actually, this is spoilersh speculation, or speculation based on a couple of things in the trailers.
……………………..
At one point Clara says “I was born to save the Doctor”. And at another River appears, in an incorporeal form, to say to Clara, “Whatever you are thnking of doing…don’t”.
Let’s assume that those two statements happen in reverse order–ie, Clara says–to someone–“I was born to save the Doctor” at the end of the episode, after River has spoken to her–and revealed to her that…Clara was born to save the Doctor. How does River know? (especially, if I am right and she is speaking from within CAL somehow).
Well, remember that she was uploaded in CAL after all her adventures with the 11th. Remember back to River holding the Doctor’s hand over the cot. Do we know how long a timelord pregnancy lasts? Could it last for years? Could River have been pregnant when the 10th uploaded her into CAL? Was that a baby bump I saw on River in the trailer? (OK, the last one is a bit insane…)
Therefore…yes, I am afraid it is the blenkinsop theory…could Clara be the child of River who was (somehow) born in CAL?
How do I go on to explain all her manifestations? I don’t. I have no idea!
End of spoilerish speculation…For now.
12 May 2013 at 03:00 #8671@htpbdet. I’m with you–I do not see any explanations or major reveals in the trailers.
River: I would not have said “ghostly”; more “incorporeal” for me. As such, reminded me a bit of when images of the previous companions appeared last season, making him feel guilty. Could she be speaking from inside CAL, somehow? (Her clothes seem a little too ethereal for the fiesty River, but not for the CAL River).
11 May 2013 at 23:51 #8654I always enjoy reading the comments prior to the delayed screening of each episode in the colonies (spoilers hold no fear for me!), but have noticed that while there is much discussion of other things–potential spoilers in the “coming next” trailers, what is happening over at the Guardian, etc–there is surprisingly little (compared to previous weeks) discussion of the actual episode itself. Strange.
I shall be forced to wait out the next 11 hours….drat!
10 May 2013 at 13:27 #8423@IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan. That photo brought tears to my eyes. A terrible confession, I know!
10 May 2013 at 10:45 #8413@bluesqueakpip. Speculation, not spoilers. Plus jokes! Jump in!
10 May 2013 at 03:14 #8407Same scene – 3 hours have passed…
Cyberman 1: “Yes, yes, I am still hanging on…’Press Button A”…There, I have done it…again…’Now press Button B’….And…YES!…what?…what?…OH, DAMN!…that was the last of my change!…DAMN, DAMN, DAMN!”
Cyberman 2: “I suggest we retreat to a distant planet, and hide out in an abandoned intergalatic amusement park, until we have mastered this fiendish Earth technology, and when we are ready, we will return to wreck our vengeance on British Telecom”
10 May 2013 at 01:22 #8406Cyberman 1: “‘Press button A’. OK, done that….’Now press button B’. What?…Oh, right…OK…Hold on, what’s happening?…Hello?…Hello?…”
Cyberman 2: “Apparently, this world is more technologically sophisticated that we anticipated.”
9 May 2013 at 12:37 #8301@satsumajoe, @ardaraith, and other enthusiasts. The monk-like figure. No. There is no way that the monk-like figure in the Asylum prequel clip would be the the monk, or more accurately, The Meddling Monk. He was a comical character from the Hartnell years. He was, indeed, a renegade time lord, but he was a bit of a conman–not entirely dissimilar to Captain Jack Harkness in his first appearance. But the main point is that he was comical. Not at all the same as the character in the Asylum prequel clip.
Yet another reason why I would encourage the enthusiasts of nu Who to take the plunge and discover the wonders of classic Who. There is so much that is so wonderful out there waiting to be discovered. Creaky sets and all.
7 May 2013 at 12:36 #8107@ardaraith. Thanks for the link. At one point in the beginning (at 0.19) you see a large square block of white paper attached to the window with letters on it. Then you see (at 0.25) a close up of part of the bottom row of letters close to the Doctor’s face.
The letters are in reverse, but spell out:
mpromisep
At first it seems meaningless, but when you divide it up it becomes
m-promise-p
Hmm…
Now, if I could get a close-up image of the whole sheet of letters might it reveal something? (Aside from the obvious fact that I am in need of some outside interests…)
7 May 2013 at 06:39 #8100@whohar. It is fun reflecting back on your own teenage years. But I fear my writing skills did let me down. It was not that I finally engaged with Troughton as the Doctor until his final story. It was rather that it took until that story for me to engage with the Troughton era of the show. To be absolutely honest, I do not think I ever really engaged with Troughton as the Doctor then (although I find that I appreciate him much more now, when I re-watch the shows).
With the Troughton years I never really had a replacement for what the mix of The Doctor, Ian, Barbara and Susan gave me when I was 12 years old. Rather, what left an impression were the stories, and for me the story (and the telling of the story) in “The War Games” was genuinely memorable. And also, it was partly my own age. When I started watching I was 11 or 12, by the time of “The War Games” I was 17, the Vietnam War was raging, and it was, well…1969 and all that entailed. “The War Games” was the right story at the right time…for me.
So, yes you are absolutely right that “the ‘next’ Doctor to ‘your’ Doctor is always a difficult transition”. And beyond that, there are all sorts of personal and social things going on that mean the experience is different for each of us. What I do find amazing is that there are so many of us out there for whom this one particular television show has been so memorable and so personal to us over such a long period of time.
7 May 2013 at 03:53 #8096@whohar. Watching Hartnell turn into Troughton. I am not sure I can do it justice in a short post. Might have to give it more thought. But even with a long post, I certainly could not do it as eloquently as @htpbdet.
But briefly, I remember being surprised and disappointed, actually. “But…that’s not The Doctor” was a version of what I felt. Of course, I went on to watch the Troughton years, but they never left the indelible impression of the Hartnell years. As I have said before, here and elsewhere, for me it wasn’t just about Hartnell, it was the group dynamic of The Doctor, Ian, Barbara and Susan that captured my imagination. That was why “The Dalek Invasion of Earth” has always been central for me, because with Susan’s departure, the dynamic changed. And then with Ian and Barbara’s deptarture at the end of “The Chase” it changed again. And with those changes, some of the magic (for me) was gone.
Thinking back, it was only with “The War Games” that I finally embraced the Troughton years. And it is interesting now that I think about it, that “The Dalek Invasion of Earth” and “The War Games” were both challenging and confronting. And the issues they dealt with were political (resistance against tryanny, self-sacrifice, responsibility to others, the use of power for good or evil, the pointlessness of war, yet the necessity of resistance to tryanny). That was heady stuff for a 12 or 13-year old. And it made a long-lasting impact on me.
6 May 2013 at 23:50 #8070@wolfweed, @haveyoufedthefish, @bluesqueakpip, etc,
The cot. It seems to me that there are a number of scenarios:
1. The child of Doctor and River was also born in the cot (implied by both Alex Kingston’s cryptic remarks on Confidential and by holding the Doctor’s hands over the cot: “I am telling you.” If so, it is likely that Clara is said child (who, perhaps, for some reason we are yet to discover, the Doctor never knew).
2. Building on Clara’s Mary Poppins image, Clara is actually his Nanny, as he was an orphan. (There is some reference to him being the lonely boy.For the moment I have forgotten where.) As such, the cot was used by Clara to raise numerous babies.
3. Clara is his mother–the mother he never knew he had, because he assumed he was an orphan. On the one hand, it makes sense of the “Run you clever boy, run”, which spunds like the type of thing a mother might say. On the other hand, we know Clara will continue with the show next year, and I cannot really see the Doctor exploring the universe with his mother!
4. Clara is Susan, as seems to be popular on the board. Personally, I do not see it.
5. None of the above.
6 May 2013 at 11:50 #7996@chickenelly. That is just brilliant. How many blogs on Doctor Who can you rely on to get an informative tutorial on art history?
And I am not being scarcastic; I really am impressed. And enlighted by your post, actually.
But mostly…I am envious of your avatar…
-
AuthorPosts
