Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
24 April 2013 at 04:35 #6549
Hello @whohar!
If I recall correctly, you said that said that you had recently moved to one of the colonial outposts in the south. If it is anywhere near where I live, the fact that your best friend is a potato means that you will fit right in! (Why else would I spend so much of my time in the Qantas Club Lounge on the way to…somewhere…anywhere…) Actually, there are many charms to the colonies, although you may find the butler from WhoHar Hall (assuming you have brought him) beginning to develop bolshie tendencies.
I love your list of what we might (or in a perfect world, should) find in the Tardis. It sounds so…well…Kennedy and 4th wall!
23 April 2013 at 12:38 #6456And Moffat is the one person who could pull of such a moment of comic horror!
(am currently surviving outside of the warm harbour of the club lounge)
23 April 2013 at 12:13 #6454I have said it before and will say it again, Clara is the Doctor’s child. “An Unearthly Child”, which links it to the beginning. Bonkers explanation will follow.
22 April 2013 at 08:54 #6350I just read my last post, which seems to have gone all timey-wimey itself. As the day Over (in the colonies) it is clearly time to open a bottle.
22 April 2013 at 08:50 #6349Hi @scaryb. But is it true that the 10th would have remembered her? If the Doctor’s timestream is linear, but is it? River met the 11th out of order. We know that the 10th and the 11th will be together on 23 November even though the 10th regenerated (presumably in the “past”). But all this sounds like time (even for the Doctor) runs in a linear way. But does itAt the end of “The Snowmen” the Great Intelligence seems to ring a bell. But if everything was linear then he would remember it clearly, as the 10th would clearly remember meeting River before if they had met before the meeting in the Library…if everything was linear.
But I think Moffat can come up with a timey-wimey alternative.
22 April 2013 at 05:13 #6339Hello again @whohar. I realise my post wasn’t actually a response to yours, more of a word association and general ramble.
I blame it all on the free wine in the Club Lounge, where I am, yet again. And about to depart.
22 April 2013 at 04:42 #6337Hello @whohar. Will we actually find out the name of the Doctor? I am not so sure. Not that we will or won’t find out his name, but that it (the name) will be the big reveal. Moffat has claimed that we will find out the Doctor’s greatest secret and “it will be surprise”. At least, I think he was quoted as saying that. Well, his name has been so heavily set up by Moffat that I do not think it constitutes a surprise. And if it is his name, let’s hope it’s not Endeavour.
No, I still think the surprise is about “who the Doctor is”, rather than “Doctor Who?” And I think it is about his relationship to other characters. We know that River Song will be back for the episode, we know that the Doctor is fixated on “who Clara is”, and we know that no one can do timey-wimey the way Moffat can.
We also know that River has seen all the Doctor’s faces. So I think the surprise is not what the Doctor’s name is, but what the context of River finding out his name was. So….if, for example, there was a child with River, it does not have to be either the 11th, or the 10th. It might have been anytime in the Doctor’s time stream–1 to 11 or 12 on. After all, River travels in time too. And River is good at keeping secrets.
21 April 2013 at 05:24 #6232Greetings fellow enthusiasts. It has been a while. I write from…the Qantas Club Lounge. Where else?
It has been a busy time at chez Blenkinsop, and I have been travelling in time and space a bit, so hence the silence up until now.
Now, I confess to not having read all the wonderful posts (but I do see that @whohar is active…hurrah!) so what I say is probably way out of date.
I was thinking about who is Clara, and I have long harboured a theory that she is mother of Susan, daughter of River and the Doctor. Now I see that River Song re-appears in “The Name of the Doctor”, and there was all that talk of fathers and daughters in “Cold War”, and the 10th told River that “there is only one time I would ever tell you my name” (or something like it) and there was the point when River puts The Doctor’s hand on the cradle and says “I am telling you”. Anyway, I am still hanging out for that resolution. But I am sure minds far more clever have proved that it cannot be true.
While my Kennedy theory for the 50th looks all but dead, could The Doctor not spend a couple of minutes swinging by Dallas and pick up a new companion..Canton? I know; I hope for too much.
Oh, my flight has been called, so it is off to travel in time and space again, on a ship which is smaller on the inside.
Fortunately, the free booze in the club lounge helps.
18 February 2013 at 08:35 #2735I just went and had a look at the Guardian blog for the first time. Interested to see how few regular faces there were. Also interested that it took me so long to check it out. I suspect I am experiencing loyalty to the @craig blog!
If I contribute to it, will I hate myself in the morning…?
17 February 2013 at 05:08 #2725@phaseshift. I love those colourised clips! I especially like the fact that the palette is so soft. Compare it to the harsh, cartoon-like colours of the John Nathan-Turner period.
But given that the colours of the Moffat era are pretty bright and bold, I hesitate to encourage a mix-and-match between the two eras.
Having said that, it would be pretty wonderful to see William Hartnell and Matt Smith in a scene together!
15 February 2013 at 20:09 #2687@phaseshift. Ha! bit of a blunder, what? You eagle-eyed moderator, you!
@jimthefish. I think the Torygraph is just re-cycling a very old rumour.
The fact that they are NOT reporting a 4th wallreturn of Canton theory shows how little impact I have on the net. Good thing too.
14 February 2013 at 21:03 #2659@jimthefish. There is always room for two blogs, and Dan Brown did bring us altogether, after all. BUT, I would very very cautious about inviting people over here. It would be good if this could remain a troll-free zone.
12 February 2013 at 07:56 #2621WAY too much negativity! This is Dr Who! And Moffat! It will be exciting, and it will be something none of us have predicted.
I have faith.
And if Canton returns, I will be thrilled!
9 February 2013 at 11:59 #2531@jimthefish I know, it’s wish fullfillment. But imagine how cool a Gaiman led Who would be!
9 February 2013 at 00:30 #2513Here is my bonkers theory on who could (should) take over as lead writer: Neil Gaiman. He would take Moffat’s magical emphasis to a whole new level.
8 February 2013 at 20:45 #2495@jimthefish. I take your point, but Gattis stories are darker, quieter, more adult in a way. All good, but it would change the tone of this family show considerably. But An Adventure in Space and Time would certainly set him up as the heir apparent.
8 February 2013 at 20:30 #2491If Moffat goes, I am not sure Gattis would take over, or even stay. They came to this and Sherlock as a team. And the stories Gattis tells work in the Moffat crazziness. But not necessarily stand alone. The 50th could be a big deal indeed.
7 February 2013 at 18:52 #2471@craig and @jimthefish. If Matt goes, does Moffat go? After Tintin, maybe Hollywood beckons him as well.
6 February 2013 at 20:44 #24455 February 2013 at 20:59 #2411Just thinking about the number of Doctors. While we think of Hartnell as the 1st and Matt Smith as the 11th, why do we assume that there were no versions of the Doctor beffore Hartnell?
Or do we? As we approach the 50th, it might be cool if that question were addressed.
If Moffat could bring back the Daleks en masse in “Asylum” then presumably the possibilities are endless in terms of the Doctor’s backstory.
(Or has this been dealt with thoroughly elsewhere?)
5 February 2013 at 00:27 #2401@haveyoufedthefish. Well, I asked for a bonkers theory, and have you delivered!
I must read Snowcrash.
I really like your explanation of why the River story might still be active.
I also think that Moffat has established The Doctor to be significant. All the references to Easter, Santa Claus, etc. Even The Doctor being tired with his role as saviour of the human race. Although what I am about to say may contradict my idea that Moffat does not reference the ideas of other writers, I confess I think back to the hint in “The Remembrance of the Daleks” that The Doctor was involved, with Rassilon and Omega, in the development of the Hand of Omega. And if involved, presumably as important (more important?) as those two. As I type this, I am not sure I buy into what I have just said, but…
However, your post was brilliant! Definitely more bonkers than bobbins.
Think of what could be done with the addition of coffee!
3 February 2013 at 21:07 #2355@miapatrick. Couldn’t agree more, particularly with your point at the end. 11 is 1.
3 February 2013 at 10:10 #2331It has been nice, coming in and seeing the posts of late, but there does seem to have been something of a lull in bonkers theorising. Some come on! We can’t just sit and wait until November 23.
Now, I would, of course, throw my hat in the ring, but it is evening over here in the colonies, and the wine was opened some time ago. Perhaps the theories might be a little affected by this point in the evening.
But I know it is still Sunday in the UK, and all sorts of time zones in the other places Enthusiasts live. And I am sure you can’t all be under the influence yet!
2 February 2013 at 11:49 #2293Hi @rob, (whose name has no link) Yes, she could be a Time Lord, but why did she seem so innocent of the Tardis when she first saw it?
Well…faking it, I suppose, but…
2 February 2013 at 03:18 #2283Maybe we could leave easter eggs for Moffat, with the message: “Bring back Canton”
1 February 2013 at 23:42 #2279Tongue also firmly in cheek…
Apart from anything else, the list would be endless
1 February 2013 at 23:39 #2277@rob Brilliant idea! Should we list them all for him?
31 January 2013 at 22:26 #2237Clara as Master’s IDRIS: Sounds cool, but does it not assume that everyone watching is aware that the Master’s TARDIS is stuck away somewhere in time and space? But would everyone watching know that? I think that requires too much specialist knowledge on the part of the audience (age 7 to 70). It also goes back to the point of how much Moffat consciously draws on, or avoids, the ideas and plot details of other writers. I would say he overwhemingly avoids.
In “Asylum of the Daleks” he simply ignores what has gone before. Skaro is still in existence, millions of Daleks are still in existence. My point is that I think while Moffat draws on characters/monsters from pre-Moffat Who, he is less concerned about “canon”. I think I am right in saying that there has not been one story under Moffat which could only take place because of what a pre-Moffat writer developed. He draws on characters (Silurians, Daleks, Cybermen, etc) from the show’s past, but does the way he uses those characters actually depend on what had happened pre-Moffat?
This is why I think the answer to “who is Clara?” (or “who is the Doctor?” for that matter) will lie in the narrative universe that Moffat has created since “The 11th Hour”.
Now to have another coffee and ponder on whether what I just said is complete bobbins.
31 January 2013 at 02:51 #2219Hold on. I just re-read your post, @janetteb. So Jessica Raine is in both the Gatiss doco-drama AND an episode of 7.2?
OK, I can start to see how the 4th wall theory might have legs after all. Hmmm.
31 January 2013 at 02:48 #2217Hi @janetteb. I wish the 4th wall theory would come through, in spite of my current reservations. Just not sure that Moffat will do anything to diminish or cheapen the Gatiss AAITAS (or is it AAISAT?)
Jessica Raine is apparently playing Verity Lambert in AAISAT, rather than a character in one of the episodes. (I think)
30 January 2013 at 23:19 #2195@phaseshift. I have a vision of you as Basil Fawlty giving his car “a damn good thrashing”. Was any thrashing involved?
30 January 2013 at 21:42 #216350th anniversay special AND “An Adventure in Time and Space”. Wow! But I now realise that one will likely have implications for the other. As I read about the cast for Gatiss’s “An Adventure in Time and Space” (Jessica Raine, Brian Cox, David Bradley, et al) I start to realise just how big it will be for the fans. It will be “a love letter to the fans” just as the 50th has been promised to be.
With that in mind, I think I will have (with great regret) to abandon my 4th wall theory for the plot of the 50th. It would compete too much with Gatiss”s AAITAS.
So, what am I left with for the 50th? Could it still be Kennedy (with a return for Canton)? Well, maybe, but I had tied that to my 4th wall theory.
Omega? Lots of Doctors? No, I don’t think so, because I don’t think Moffat runs with the plotlines of other writers. I think this will be pure Moffat. Which means…I have no idea!
30 January 2013 at 03:24 #2105@jimthefish. Agree on Warner. If anyone has ever seen “Morgan:A Suitable Case For Treatment” you will know what I mean. His range is incredible.
29 January 2013 at 00:48 #2065@jimthefish. Love the images. Agree with @juniperfish that the appeal of them lies in the old skool fan feel. It’s funny how back in the 60s fan creativity involved building a Tardis out of old toilet rolls and string. Now we do it with Photoshop. And it is still just as charming.
28 January 2013 at 21:30 #205728 January 2013 at 10:08 #2041Just re-watched “Asylum of the Daleks”. Starting to re-engage with my initial thoughts. Hmm.
28 January 2013 at 08:52 #2035No, having said all that I am not convinced Moffat would reference what was a dodgy production. Cannot think of any writer’s ideas that Moffat has referenced except his own. Or am I mistaken? Probably. Well, possibly…
28 January 2013 at 05:37 #2033@jimthefish. Loved the epic post! The blenkinsop brain has been in hyperdrive since reading it. A bunch of thoughts, probably disconnected and perhaps contradictory. Anyway:
1. In “Remembrance of the Daleks”, we don’t see Omega, but we do see The Hand of Omega. In the form of a coffin. In a graveyard.
2. The Doctor at one point says to Ace, something along the lines of: “The Daleks are too driven by logic. The answer is to get a young imaginative child and enslave the Battle Computer”.
3. In “Asylum of the Daleks” Oswin is, arguably, a young, imaginative child who is so clever she can control the Dalek computer.
4. At the end of “The Snowmen” we see Clara standing by her (seemingly) own gravestone.
5. Hand of Omega. HoO. H2O?? (I know, this one is a real stretch, but I thought I would thow it in. It was the least I could do to keep alive my idea about Clara-as-daughter of River, grand-daughter of Amy and mother of Susan)
6. In “Remembrance of the Daleks”, doesn’t the Doctor admit to Ace that he may have been part of the team including Rassilon and Omega in developing The Hand of Omega? Is this (the use of Oswin/Clara) part of a really long term game plan, that even the Doctor has forgotten (or maybe engineered himself to forget)?
7. Running with @jimthefish that we could be leading to a total re-boot, I have long felt that Moffat strikes me as a writer who would love to have–literally–the last word on Who. By that, I mean that it would be a re-boot whereby the past arcs and reference points would be irrelevant. Everything would be new.
OK, now running out of ideas.
Oh, hold on. 8. “Remembrance of the Daleks” was the closest they came to breaking the 4th wall (Had to make that point!)
25 January 2013 at 03:57 #1903@craig. I think I should point out that “the colonies” to which I have a tendency to refer, are, in fact, rather diverse. And there is a world of difference between Australia and New Zealand. Not precisely sure what a UK equivalent would be…[place your desired locale here] and…the Orkneys?
25 January 2013 at 00:46 #1897<I’ll stick to tea in future>
I had an aunt who could drink 6 cups of tea between breakfast and…well…morning tea. And she always spoke complete bobbins
Don’t give up on espressos just yet.
Anyway, it may not have been the Doctor who built the Tardis in the upstairs flat, but your other espresso-enhanced thoughts were inspired.
23 January 2013 at 01:34 #1831Have been thinking more about your wonderfully crazed caffeine-induced thoughts above, and it has always struck me that there must have been a reason why we never get to see the face of the avatar/alien in the upstairs flat in “The Lodger”. Why do they refuse to let us see his face? The only reason I can think of is that we have already seen his face and it is important. But who he is and why it is important…well, you are at least 5 espressos in front of me on that one.
22 January 2013 at 22:43 #1829Another 4th wall theory believer! Hurrah. I really like your caffeine-induced thoughts.
22 January 2013 at 06:23 #1813@craig. I applaud your tolerance by continuing to date your Australian girlfriend even after she revealed she had never watched Doctor Who! Of course, I think I should point out that not every Australian was glued to Doctor Who. And if my mathematics is correct, and she was 32 when Eccleston regenerated, then by the time she was of a Doctor Who viewing age the show was about to disappear.
But as @bobbingbird has already revealed the appalling state of my knowledge of chemistry (yes, I now realise that CO2 is actually carbon dioxide), I am willing to accept that my mastery of mathematics might be in question as well.
20 January 2013 at 08:10 #1771It is an obvious point, but no one imagined when they put on this children’s show in 1963 that it would survive, much less become the phenomenon that it did. Hartnell’s Doctor was never designed with the back-story we all are now so familiar with. If memory serves correct, it was only in “The Time Meddler” that another Time Lord and another TARDIS was introduced, and the back-story began, slowly, to take shape.
But at the beginning, there was just The Doctor, this slightly alarming old man–to the 11 year-old that I was, and most of the original audience were. And this brings me to my second point: while the show is now a family show, designed to be watched by parents and children together, at the beginning it was a children’s show. While 40 year-olds who originally watched Tom Baker now watch it with their children, and 60 year-olds who originally watched William Hartnell now try and catch some quality time with the grandchildren watching Matt Smith, back in 1963 it was watched by children, and just children.
This is important, because, originally, it was as much an educational programme as anything else–introducing 10 year-olds to history and science through both the adventures themselves (The Aztecs for history, Planet of Giants and others for science) and via Ian and Barbara, the science teacher and the history teacher. And because it was watched by children, rather than children with their parents, it encouraged children to be creative and independent–to build their own Daleks out of cardboard and to take an interest in seeking out a book on the Aztecs or the Romans. I know that this was precisely my experience, and I was not alone.
As the show went on, and the Doctors changed, the original character of the Doctor changed. This we know. But I think it is important to note that there was a close relationship to the changing Doctors and the generation that began watching in 1963 and slowly grew up with the show. I am talking about that cohort that was about 10 or 11 in 1963. The wide-eyed 11 year-old (like me) that watched Ian, Barbara, Susan and the Doctor go on adventures to the past and to the future, slowly grew up, and by the age of 13 was ready for Troughton’s more comical Doctor and more monsters. By the mid teens we were ready for Pertwees’ dashing adventurer, working with UNIT to save the Earth. By university, we could identify with Tom Baker’s swagger and scarf. In many ways, the early years of Who (and the differences in the Doctors) changed to reflect the ageing of the generation of 10 and 11 year-olds that turned on the television on November 23, 1963.
But then we (that generation that started watching in 1963) had grown out of Who. The pity was that I do not think the show knew how to attract a new generation in quite the same way.
I will also confess that I was not captivated by RTD’s re-invention, or by the 9th and 10th. (I know, this is heresy to say this on this board!) But when Matt Smith appeared, I recognised–instantly–the same Doctor I saw in William Hartnell all those years ago. Tom Baker was fun, but I never felt he was the same Doctor as William Hartnell, even with a new face and new personality. But I do with Matt Smith.
This, I believe, is the genius of Moffat. He has created a Doctor (and Matt Smith has realised that Doctor) that speaks to the audience of today, but is–for the first time–indelibly linked to the origin of the show. Moffat’s “Doctor Who” is overtly magical in tone. Verity Lambert’s “Doctor Who” was educational, secular, and adventurous. But the impact of it was magical on a wide-eyed 11 year-old. Her genius was to make an educational children’s show magical.
I realise I have drifted somewhat from my original point, but I hope there is something in there of interest for my fellow enthusiasts.
15 January 2013 at 00:44 #1435@juniperfish. The Valeyard. I was somewhat sceptical of the 50th featuring the Valeyard, but I really like your idea of the Valeyard being associated with a countdown of Doctors that allows for a completely new bunch of regenerations to lead the show on through the next 50 years.
Hold on…your idea was on “The Lodger” page, not this one. <Argghh, blenkinsop gamely copes with the fracture in the time and space of the site>
So, if we do get the Valeyard, who might it be? Benedict Cumberbatch is almost too easy an answer. But is will have to be someone with screen presence and star-text.
Who….?
14 January 2013 at 03:16 #1409A personal favourite. The football game alone is worth the price of admission.
Since first watching the episode, I will quite often turn to Mrs Blenkinsop at the end of the day: “Pizza, booze, telly?”
13 January 2013 at 23:48 #1403A couple of reflections on this wonderful–and ever expanding–site.
On the one hand, it is brilliant that we have it. @craig has been a hero. He deserves endless thanks and plaudits.
The speed with which the site has expanded is amazing. And some of the contributions over the last couple of weeks since the site went active have been wonderful.
We can now go to separate pages for speculation, or memories, or pages on specific episodes, even non-Who pages. Which is great.
Sometimes, of course, the different pages can be a bit confusing. Reflections on the forthcoming episodes can be posted on the page about speculation for the 50th. Comments about companions are sometimes really personal Who memories.
Indeed, in a strange sort of way, the amazing diversity of the site, with its different pages, has a tendency to repeat some of the problems of the Guardian site, where the nested structure broke the flow of the conversation.
Which brings me to the whole question of “conversation”. That, it seems to me, was the very best of the Guardian Who blog. There was a genuine sense of a flowing and developing conversation that was embedded in the one simple thread. The conversation might range from bonkers theories about what was to come, to reflections on the difference between Old and Nu Who, to assessment of the writing and acting. But is was all part of a single conversation. People actively responded to what went before and a genuine collective conversation took place.
But I wonder if we might have lost something of that conversation. Many of the posts now are single contributions, rather than part of a collectivbe conversation. Of course, there are responses to what posters have said, but they are immediate and do not really lead to an ongoing discussion. In fact, in many ways, the responses that do appear are strangely similar to what happened under the nested structure on the Guardian pages.
Now, having said all this, I am still deeply grateful that we Enthusiasts have a dedicated site to share our thoughts and reflections, but, I also find myself missing the feel of the single, ongoing conversation.
12 January 2013 at 23:25 #1325I have been thinking more about the historical discrepancies (Japanese PM, etc). Why are we assuming that the Doctor inhabits the world we inhabit?
In “The Snowmen” most people have glossed over the Doctor as Sherlock Holmes , but perhaps Simeon’s quip about knowing that Holmes is fictional is more important than we think. Holmes is the one fictional character that has been mistaken as real by lots of people over the years. Is Moffat preparing us for something that concerns the relationship between the Doctor’s Earth and our Earth?
Yes, it is me trying to think through the 4th wall theory again…
11 January 2013 at 20:59 #1241The entire budget for each episode in the 1960s probably would not even cover the coffee for an episode today, and yet we still keep watching them for the wondrous things they are.
I would not worry about the prospect of a reduced budget for the forthcoming episodes. It is all about the writing, the acting and the direction. And, as you note, look at “Blink”.
11 January 2013 at 03:50 #1213I think we all have a very personal perspective on the question of favourite companions and favourite Doctors, depending quite often on when we started watching it (and how old we were at the time).
I am very much a child of Hartnell Who. I vividly remember watching “An Unearthly Child” on our black-and-white television set when it was first screened. I was 11 years old, and whenever I re-watch Hartnell’s Doctor, Ian, Barbara and Susan, I am 11 years old again.
So, for me, no-one can compare to Ian and Barbara. As an 11 year-old and then as a 12 year-old, they were the adults I wanted to grow up to be. And looking back on it, “The Dalek Invasion of Earth” a year later had an enormous impact on me. All the things it dealt with: a dystopian future, the need to fight against a tryanny, self-sacrifice, Susan falling in love and leaving her grandfather. This was heady stuff for a 12 year-old.
So, while Doctor Who has been lots of fun over the last 50 years, it was the relationship between Ian, Barbara, Susan and the Doctor that existed between “An Unearthly Child” and Susan’s departure at the end of “The Dalek Invasion of Earth” that will always be MY Doctor Who.
-
AuthorPosts
