Forum Replies Created
28 March 2020 at 20:04 #7031528 March 2020 at 19:01 #70310
@miapatrick Yeah, it’s the not knowing the timescale that makes it worse. There was an article on NHS England’s response in the Spectator this week by Dr Max Pemberton which is simultaneously reassuring and scary. Reassuring because they are gearing up to do everything they can; scary because they don’t yet know how long they’ll have to be in crisis mode.
Both of you stay safe and stay strong.25 March 2020 at 15:48 #70263
I’m really sorry to hear that. I do know some cancer treatments affect the immune system, so it could well be that they’re cancelling treatments because they’re balancing the medium term progression against the short term chance of dying from Coronavirus.
Or it just could be that all their beds are full (or they expect them to be full) of highly infectious patients and they don’t want anybody who isn’t in immediate danger near their hospital.
My mum (North Wales) has already been told that she’s not considered bad enough to get the ‘stay inside for 12 weeks’ letter, but that she is not to go in to the GP’s surgery until further notice. Phone them, fine, but don’t go in.22 March 2020 at 20:24 #70228
unless the choice of a fancy breed was a deliberate joke
I suspect it was partly a deliberate joke and partly that they needed a rabbit that would sit placidly where it was put while David Tennant was ranting at it. It was probably an exhibition or show rabbit.
But I know what you mean; I remember seeing it for the first time and thinking what a huge rabbit it was – but that would be why the Tennant Doctor would think it might possibly be a Zygon. 😀22 March 2020 at 20:17 #70227
This is a fan video that Tom Spilsbury (Editor of Doctor Who Magazine)has shared – an expanded and brought-up-to-date version of the ‘Gallifrey Stands’ sequence22 March 2020 at 19:23 #70223
Maybe see what people are going with online initially? I think we have done rewatches of every new-Who episode, plus the 50th Anniversary Specials, so joining in a worldwide rewatch of ‘greatest hits’ might be fun – especially if the relevant showrunners are along for the ride. The Moffat beard is pretty scary, though.
If we did go with forum-only rewatches, another go at Adventure in Time and Space would be my vote, but I’m not sure it’s on iPlayer. Likewise, @janetteb‘s suggestion of The Five(ish) Doctors would be a good one.
You weren’t the only one who promptly thought of Davison, Baker and McCoy under those sheets.
The subheading was Craig’s choice and my suggestion, if I’m recalling rightly. Craig asked for a few possibilities and I suggested the quote from The God Complex.21 March 2020 at 23:10 #70210
Well, that was fun. Is it really six and a half years since the 50th?
I agree with @jimthefish – everyone is working at the top of their game, trying to make something really special. This isn’t a love letter to the fans – it’s a love letter to Doctor Who. All of Doctor Who, from the actors who’ve played The Doctor on TV, to the slightly naff rubber monsters, to Gallifrey, to the reboot. All of it, right down to the then-present-day Moffat loop (where does that fez come from?).
John Hurt’s performance is excellent. The most Doctorish thing about his Doctor is the sheer charm he brings to the role. Not only is he charming Clara, he’s charming the audience into believing that he is ‘The Doctor’, even though they’ll only see him in this story.
And I did like the Strax introduction video. 🙂21 March 2020 at 00:11 #70190
So that’s how the centre gets in chocolates! Thanks for the link to that very interesting collection.
Thanks also for everyone’s good wishes – my temperature was down again today, approaching normal. But you’re right @winston – I did a tiny bit of prep work this morning, and it was exhausting. The afternoon was spent resting. 🙂
Day of the Doctor re-watch, Saturday at 7pm. I’m on.19 March 2020 at 13:05 #70178
Currently I’m catching up with Discovery Season 2, which my brother very kindly posted to me. I’m liking it much more than I did Season 1; they seem to have got their act together and everyone now knows the characters. I’ve also managed to nearly finish one of those ‘books I ought to read’. I think feeling ill helps fight ‘cabin fever’ – firstly, I know taking time off to recover is a good thing, secondly, whenever I go near the NHS 111 website it basically tells me ‘Don’t even THINK about leaving the house.’ 🙂 If I were in quarantine because somebody else was ill I’d probably be climbing the walls by now.
My temperature stabilised yesterday and is down again today – I’m hoping this means I’m now in the recovery phase.
Baby formula makes considerably more sense than toilet paper. If you’re in quarantine for 14 days, that means any parent of a young baby really would be sensible to have a fourteen day supply of formula in the cupboard. Even if you breast-feed – suppose it’s Mum who gets the corona virus? Looking at some on-line supermarkets, it seems to be the ‘from birth’ packs that are starting to sell out; suggesting it is parents whose child is too small for anything but milk.18 March 2020 at 10:18 #70163
Yes, it’s a worrisom time for the self-employed and small businesses. I have no idea how it’s going to go – I’ve already lost my regular summer work, because it was invigilating for university exams. Theatres are being shut, and I’ve no idea whether filming is going to completely shut down – some series have already stopped. The government has announced loans, rates holidays and mortgage holidays, but nothing as yet specifically for the self-employed.
The one gig that might continue is tutoring, because if the schools are closed, more parents might want one-to-one sessions (and I can do English and Maths up to GCSE). I think I need to look into skyping…. Normally summer’s a black hole as far as that gig’s concerned, but if the GCSE exams are moved to September, there might be more work coming in.
Anyway, one of the things I’ve done while I’ve been stuck at home not earning anything is to open up a Universal Credit application. Judging by the 40 minute wait to book an appointment, so has everyone else.18 March 2020 at 09:48 #70162
They’re pushing it as a precaution, because they have some evidence that ibuprofen and respiratory diseases like Coronavirus don’t go well together. The BBC have a fact vs fiction page on it.
The NHS advice is:
There is currently no strong evidence that ibuprofen can make coronavirus (COVID-19) worse. But until we have more information, take paracetamol to treat the symptoms of coronavirus, unless your doctor has told you paracetamol is not suitable for you.
If you are already taking ibuprofen or another non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) on the advice of a doctor, do not stop taking it without checking first.
So if paracetamol makes you sick, I think you might come under ‘paracetamol is not suitable’. If you’ve been prescribed ibuprofen, definitely keep taking it.17 March 2020 at 17:17 #70157
Thanks for that – I’m definitely eating my (frozen) greens.
Further to my advice above, the latest precaution is that you should now AVOID anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen (Nurofen, Advil) if you suspect your illness may possibly be Coronavirus. Paracetamol (Acetaminophen, Tylenol or Panadol) is still fine.
That’s very funny – and so true. I’m still puzzling over the bog roll shortage. It’s a respiratory disease; do people think you breath in through your butt? (Out, maybe 😉 )16 March 2020 at 14:27 #70149
@whisht – Thanks for your good wishes – yes, being able to type to someone is definitely one of the strengths of online!
Advice from others that I’ve found useful two-and-a-half days in: the government advice is to keep well ventilated and having a through breeze definitely feels less ‘locked in’. So unless they change that advice, open a couple of windows (just enough for ventilation).
Don’t act like you normally would when ill. Get up, get showered, dressed etc. Sit in chairs, don’t lie in bed. If you feel too ill to do things like that (and you normally can do them), that’s the point when you should be consulting the medicos.
As well as online, TV etc, physical hobbies like knitting, crotchet, drawing are very helpful.
Stocking up. Think stuff you can throw in a slow cooker or casserole as well as pasta. If you’re having to self-isolate because you’ve got a cough and a fever, you might not feel well enough to do any complicated cooking. Don’t forget to buy paracetamol/asprin/ibuprofen or whatever your fever medication of choice is and get enough to cover having to take the full daily dose for several days.
@nerys – it does sound like it started earlier than the arrival of the Dreaded Lurgy, but colds are still horrible. Hope you get better soon and are able to visit your parents later this year.15 March 2020 at 23:22 #70141
Yeah, technically what created the continuity snafu was ignoring the additional possible Doctors after Brain of Morbius and calling Davison the Fifth Doctor. I suppose you could say that was the point at which the continuity snafu starts.
I’d have to re-rewatch the Deadly Assassin to double-check, but I think the Doctor is talking about the kind of lie history is usually based on – that is, when we put how wonderful we are in the history books. 🙂 Time Lord history is ‘not entirely accurate’. But the lie in Timeless Children is on a whole other level to ‘we missed out all the bad bits’/’not entirely accurate’. If the Master is telling the truth, everything he’d ever been taught to believe about the origin of his species is a flat-out lie.
Seriously, ‘no aliens on Gallifrey’? When their ability to regenerate was gained from another species, from an alien child they’d taken in? And yet that ‘no aliens on Gallifrey’ is so ingrained that the Doctor automatically repeats the mantra, even after being told that she, herself, is that adopted alien.
With nothing more than a wave of her magic wand.
That was a joke, not a comment on the script: I was joking about the Doctor’s well known tendency to tear bits of tech into pieces and rebuild them into whatever the plot requires. (But her ability to make new gadgets out of old often does bear a certain resemblance to the scriptwriting.)15 March 2020 at 22:53 #70139
Alas, I’m already in self-isolation – I managed to develop a cough yesterday (complete with headache and a bit of a temperature). As Mudlark says, I think I may be very bored of the contents of my cupboards by next week.
I doubt it’s the Dreaded Lurgy Itself, but as you say Whisht, one way I can help is by not going out and giving other people my germs.15 March 2020 at 17:30 #70125
He betrays no astonishment at his pre-Hartnell selves when psychically battling the outcast Time Lord Morbius, but is mindblown when receiving psychic exposition about them from the outcast Time Lord the Master.
Yes, that’s a continuity problem. But there’s no good answer to it, because the pre-Hartnell selves were a continuity contradiction anyway. If they were real, the regeneration cycle should have been rebooted at the end of the Davison era. If they weren’t real, or weren’t remembered, Tom Baker should have shown astonishment when they turned up.
Neither happened, which is a contradiction. Doctor Who is full of them.
And it’s weird that the one person who seemed well aware that Time Lord history is a lie should be the recipient of the dramatic revelation that Time Lord history is a lie,
That’s misdirection for you. The line is ‘Everything you think you know is a lie,’ and the initial assumption was that it’s only about Time Lord history. But the dramatic revelation for the Doctor is that everything she thinks she knows about herself is a lie.
She wasn’t born on Gallifrey, her brother was her adoptive brother and her parents were her adoptive parents . Oh, and she had a long and busy life – which she doesn’t remember. Oh, and every Time Lord is in some sense her descendent. That’s pretty mind-blowing.
It’s like being given an iPhone and a micro USB cable. You can see how they should fit, but it’s pretty obvious upon inspection that they don’t.
Just hand them over to the Doctor (any incarnation). Doctor Who will make them fit. 😀7 March 2020 at 13:22 #70065
No, I don’t want to start any arguments again either. So:
No, she tells him she’s filled with a multitude. Her genetic inheritance. Her DNA is better than the Master’s.
While that is a possible interpretation, I would say that at the moment, it’s a theory. It’s a theory based on the Master’s obsessive anger at having the Doctor’s DNA inside him – but the Master is the villain, not the hero.
An alternative theory would be that the Doctor caps the Master’s misquote of Shelley (‘look at my works and despair’) with a misquote from Walt Whitman (“I contain multitudes.”)
The past and present wilt—I have fill’d them, emptied them.
And proceed to fill my next fold of the future.
Listener up there! what have you to confide to me?
Look in my face while I snuff the sidle of evening,
(Talk honestly, no one else hears you, and I stay only a minute longer.)
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
I concentrate toward them that are nigh, I wait on the door-slab.
Who has done his day’s work? who will soonest be through with his supper?
Who wishes to walk with me?
Will you speak before I am gone? will you prove already too late?
So the Master references a poem about a mighty king who has been destroyed by Time, the Doctor references a poem about ordinary people doing ordinary things. The ‘multitudes’ are not her DNA; they are her past selves. The Master thought finding out she was adopted/not-a-Time-Lord-by-birth would break her; for the Doctor it simply means there is an entire past out there waiting for her. The Master is scared of that new past, she is still the confident, hopeful explorer.
Another alternative theory. Tom Baker really was an icon of his time. Punk before punk, as you say. But what is our time? Punk, misfits – they’re practically mainstream.
Well, our time is one where people discover that our past wasn’t quite the glowing iconography we thought it was – and then try to pull the symbols of that past down, destroy it. Remove statues, rename colleges, insist that a country can’t fly one of its own flags. Basically, that’s what the Master’s done. He’s destroyed Gallifrey, pulled down the statues, so to speak. The good went with the bad and now nothing remains. And it broke him.
The Doctor, otoh, says to herself in the Matrix
DOCTOR: Of course they would. All this, it means I’m not who I thought I was.
RUTH: Because your memories aren’t compatible with what you learnt today.
RUTH: Have you ever been limited by who you were before?
So maybe one of the things Chibbers is trying to say through the Doctor is simply that our past is important, but it doesn’t limit us – and we don’t have to destroy everything about that past just because our ancestors weren’t perfect.7 March 2020 at 12:45 #70063
that altered nothing of the mythos up to and including the TV movie.
That’s quite true, but can we argue that a showrunner has to treat the Pre Gap mythos as sacrosanct? Which bit of it is sacrosanct? How do we reconcile the already existing inconsistencies? Moffat inserted an extra Doctor from the Gap into the running order. Chibnall’s inserted an adoption (and extra Doctors) into the Pre-history (or New Gap?) before Hartnell. ‘Adopted foundling’ does change one heck of a lot – but it fits with the ‘oddball, misfit’ Doctor that we’ve seen. The obviously very talented and special saver-of-worlds who is nonetheless mediocre at being a Time Lord.
Neither showrunner changed what we saw on screen, but they both may have changed the meaning of what we saw. Chibnall’s tag line for this arc was: ‘everything you think you know is a lie’. Well, after The Day of the Doctor, a lot of fans could apply that tag line to the Eccleston and Tennant Doctors, because they’d say that – now – Gallifrey was never really destroyed. So all Tennant’s very beautiful angst was based on his believing a lie…
(I’d argue that there were two time lines, but that’s another story).7 March 2020 at 12:20 #70062
Daniel Barton was explained both in Spyfall and in the finale – in Spyfall, from what I remember, it was explained that his computer geek persona was so strong, he’d used himself as a beta testa for splicing the alien DNA into humans – so that they could become hard drives, presumably.
The Master/Missy always escapes and he/she hardly ever explains how. The explanation in The Witch’s Familiar is a very rare beast indeed.
Yeah, I really don’t like the Doctor using this revelation as a way to say she’s better than the Master.
Given that the Master’s just murdered her adoptive home, is sending Cybermen to see if they can kill off her companions and has kidnapped her and stuffed her in the Matrix – I think being a bit tetchy and snappily using his revelation to get one-up on him is allowable. As you say, she isn’t perfect.7 March 2020 at 00:02 #70044
What Chibs has done is that he’s tried to destroy/rewrite the fabula rather than contribute his own sjuzet (God, kill me now for even going down this route….)
If this reaches the stage of discussing semiotics, your local vicar should be able to suggest some suitable deliverance ministries.
In the meantime, if I understand you, you mean that the Whoniverse has a generally accepted chronological (ha!) background, accumulated over the years, which taken as a whole is what the various writers tend to draw upon. And you would argue, I think, that in introducing a new myth of the Timeless Child, Chibbers is destroying that background.
Whereas in adding the Time War and the Doctor committing genocide, RTD was simply adding new events, changing the story so that the Doctor develops. Admittedly, moving from ‘do I have the right’ to a background of genocide was a pretty big character development…. and the Daleks weren’t really genocided, either. Come to that, Gallifrey turned out to be a Schroedinger’s Gallifrey. 🙂
However, had we been discussing this in the early part of the first series After The Gap, we could say that RTD had removed a lot of the accepted Whoniverse mythos. No surviving Daleks, no surviving Gallifrey, no other Time Lords. He’d taken us back to the beginning of ‘mysterious bloke in blue box’. Yes, the reason he’d removed it was to re-introduce it for a new generation – who mostly had to rely on their parents to provide the collective memory of the Whoniverse. But had we been discussing this in those first few episodes, immediately after the reveal of the Time War, it would have looked exactly as if RTD had – well, blown the accepted Whoniverse narrative into teeny tiny bits.
allowing it form at least part of the forward narrative momentum of their particular eras.
I would argue quite strongly that we can’t tell if this is going to form part of a forward narrative momentum when all we have to go on is the last twenty minutes of one episode. One episode which ends on a cliffhanger.
The forward narrative arc for this series was leading towards the reveal – but I suspect you’re considering it as if it were the Impossible Girl arc, which essentially tidied up the Doctor’s backstory with ‘Clara did it’. Clara did it was the climax of a backwards looking arc. The ‘turn’ into forward movement was that going into his own timeline to rescue Clara revealed the War Doctor, and then the plot of Day of the Doctor resolved the Doctor’s past. Okay, it got a bit timey-wimey, with past and future intertwined.
Furthermore, while Moffat didn’t plan the War Doctor, he had absolutely zero compunction about blowing the firmly accepted chronological sequence of Doctors into teeny tiny bits. Completely b*gg*r*ng up the numbering system as a small side effect, which must have driven BBC marketing nuts. 🙂
Then there’s Robert Holmes (and I still don’t understand why my post on that resulted in my head being ripped off). Again, absolutely zero compunction about blowing the accepted chronological ‘Hartnell was the first Doctor’ narrative into bits, then he made a change to the regeneration myth by restricting it to twelve (which stuck like glue), then there was the Valeyard.
So if you define ‘fabula’ as ‘generally accepted chronological background’, a number of writers have quite happily changed that. The difference between those writers and what Chibnall has done, is that Chibbers appears to have changed the Doctor’s home planet and extended the chronology back into the mists of Gallifrey’s origin. Other writers have changed the Doctor’s biology, his morality, the ordering of his lives, how many of those lives he’s had and how many of those lives he/she is restricted to. RTD changed Rassilon from ‘Father of his People’ to ‘Mad Genocidal Dictator’. Chibnall’s changed the planet the Doctor comes from, her sex and her skin colour.
the entire mythos, the entire sense of who the Doctor is, what their ethos is, has been changed. They’re a damaged victim of abuse and exploitation now rather than a hopeful rebel explorer.
Jim, I think you’re taking a fan theory (that the sequence of events in the Master’s reconstruction show abuse and exploitation rather than acceptable medical research or the Master being an unreliable narrator) and blaming the writer for what’s presently a fan idea rather than anything their script has said.
We certainly haven’t yet seen any evidence that the Doctor is a ‘damaged victim’, is going to be a ‘damaged victim’ – or even that her adoptive mother’s research did any actual damage. I’m reminded of young River’s line ‘it’s easy’ when it comes to regenerating and Romana’s casual flipping between bodies – what if it turns out that the Doctor’s huge regeneration problem is some residual thing from the much later memory wipe? (Or that the Master was doing some unreliable narration?) What if the Timeless Child could regenerate as easily as sneezing, and with about as much psychological trauma?
It could yet turn out to be major child abuse, but if you’re after abuse and exploitation, Moffat did a fairly good story about that. Heaven Sent, I think it was called? Millions of years of major psychological abuse? Did that change the Doctor from being a hopeful rebel explorer? Well, actually, yes it did seem to. But she recovered.
But has the mythos of the show moved on at all from end of The Doctor Falls? Not really, that I can see.
Yes, it’s been moved backwards to the origins of Gallifrey, we’ve discovered that the Doctor is adopted and that there are many more Doctors than we thought. The Doctor is now able to move on from being ‘a Time Lord from Gallifrey’ if she wants, and the regeneration limit doesn’t apply.
I suppose you could say that in Chibber’s first series we saw a Doctor trying to escape her past, and in the second she discovers that the past she was trying to escape – is only part of a much larger past.6 March 2020 at 19:58 #70041
The Police Box TARDIS can be explained as the Hartnell Doctor ‘stealing’ his previous TARDIS – without knowing that she was the TARDIS he’d used before. It actually fits better with Sexy’s comment that ‘she stole him’ if she’d known the Doctor in his/her pre-mind-wipe incarnations. There are then a couple of possibilities:
a) She remembers the previous form and gets ‘stuck’ in it again.
b) She ‘remembers’ (she’s a time machine) that she was in this form when the Whittaker Doctor and the Ruth Doctor meet up and makes sure she’s in that form when the Ruth Doctor fled to Earth.
The strongest argument that the Ruth Doctor is pre-Hartnell is that Gat seems horrified by the thought of the same Time Lord meeting up. By the time of Day of the Doctor the Time Lords are so used to this with the Doctor, that The General is moaning resignedly about all of them at once being his worst nightmare.
From a production point of view, I think it was simply ‘speed in storytelling’. After fifty odd years, the entire audience knows that ‘Blue Police Box’ means ‘it’s the Doctor!’ Having Ruth’s hidden secret TARDIS be a Police Box meant that the audience immediately accepted it as true when she announces ‘I’m the Doctor’.6 March 2020 at 16:08 #70037
but there are lots of valid criticisms you can make of Chibs.
There are indeed, and I’ve actually made some of them. His pacing! But I’ve never been bothered as much as you’ve been by his tendency to have characters who experience ‘lightbulb’ moments and then do a 180 degree turn. We’ve argued about this before, I think, and you tend to think that it’s the writer’s fault whereas I think if the writer’s given the actor a reason to do the turn, not showing it properly is the actor’s fault.
With regard to DrSilurian Mengele, (Malohkeh?), he’s saying nice stuff such as ‘this won’t hurt you’ and ‘it’s okay to show concern’ from about three lines in. Doctor Mengele from our point of view (definitely Amy’s!), perfectly nice scientist experimenting on apes from his – and the ‘turn’ comes when he realises that the Doctor isn’t human and the humans are people like him. Still, I suppose it’s difficult to play all that lot when you’re covered in Silurian make-up.
Chibnall does like his ‘lightbulb moments,’ and I can see that if you don’t you’re going to find him a really annoying writer.
Chibs doesn’t seem to [understand dramatic structure inside out]
However, the counter-argument to that is that the two writers who you specifically namecheck as understanding dramatic structure both commissioned Chris Chibnall to write episodes of Doctor Who. RTD, I think, got him the Torchwood gig as showrunner, and specifically namechecks him (with Moffat and Matthew Graham) as one of the writers he doesn’t need to rewrite.
Either they think he does understand dramatic structure, or their understanding of good drama is a bit more fluid than ‘does great structure’. I’d also argue that I did a fairly big blog on Moffat’s Day of the Doctor which was partly in response to various fan arguments that it had bad structure. As the meme goes, the Day of the Doctor was simply ‘not the structure you were looking for.’
With regard to The Timeless Children I’d have to do a rewatch with a notebook to do a proper structure dissection. My off-the-cuff analysis would be that the reveal needed a fairly substantial (for Doctor Who) infodump, of the sort that would normally be delivered in a speech by the Doctor but here had to be delivered by the Master. Chibbers is not at his best with infodumps (Rosa, anyone?), but he did his best to break this one up.
(See, I can criticise him. His infodumps can be flippin’ awful.)
I found that the Ryan and Graham character arc didn’t work for me because again Chibs didn’t put enough work into it.
I’m not sure which episodes you mean because I struggle with acronyms – the letters switch around. But I went over and checked the episode titles that Chibnall either wrote or co-wrote in his first series, then I tried to recall (without checking a transcript) what character progression there was for Ryan and Graham in each episode. And I did remember the character progression in each episode.
So I’d have to disagree, because while you’re saying ‘not enough work’, I’m saying ‘but I can remember how that arc progressed without checking anything other than the episode title.’ [In acting notes, it’s customary to rephrase ‘a bit one-note’ as ‘need to vary your performance a little more’. 😀 ]
The ‘mythos’ part of your post is going to need another post.6 March 2020 at 14:33 #70036
Yes, sorry, replied to wrong person. I’m definitely up for ‘River and the Timeless Child both got their ability to regenerate from the Time Vortex’.5 March 2020 at 18:25 #70018
No, River’s origin story works fine. Just ask yourself where the Timeless Child got her ability to regenerate from?
And Madame Vastra was very clear that it was in River’s DNA. I vaguely recall a big DNA diagram on screen, and she was rather delicately trying to ask if the Doctor was River’s father. Without using the words ‘sex’ or ‘conception’. 😀4 March 2020 at 23:29 #69996
Just saying that I really hope that we’re not being infected by the Twitter virus where if you articulate any criticisms of the current run that you’re automatically labelled an NMD and basically told just to shut the hell up.
I hope so too – but I think, when articulating criticisms, there is a responsibility to assess whether there’s a genuine fault in the work, or whether the critic just doesn’t like this writer’s style. Is the fault in Chris Chibnall’s writing, or is the fault that he’s just not Steven Moffat? Is the critique of faults in Chris Chibnall’s story, or is it being torn to pieces because it’s not the same sort of story that Steven Moffat would tell?
I don’t think Chibnall is at Moffat’s level as a writer. I also don’t think Mark Gattiss is at Moffat’s level as a writer and I don’t think RTD is at Moffat’s level either. Which kind of, I think, is my response to @blenkinsopthebrave‘s worry that Chibnall is taking things back to RTD. It’s clearly no accident, because that last cliffhanger was a completely deliberate call back to the RTD/Tennant ‘What, what, WHAT?’ catchphrase.
But the one thing Chibnall doesn’t have IS Moffat. Because Steven Moffat’s done twice as long as showrunner as he originally wanted, and even if he does come back to do scripts for Who, it’s very unlikely to be during the Chibnall period. So if you don’t have Moffat, and you’re not as good as Moffat … probably best to go for a style of Who you can compete with and know how to do, rather than try Moffat-style and fail miserably. Chibnall and RTD are, I think, pretty much on a level as writers.
The show’s mythos is no further forward than when he took over.
I’m really not understanding what you mean by ‘mythos’, because in the sense of ‘a set of beliefs or assumptions about something’ Chibnall’s just blown the show’s mythos into teeny tiny pieces. Then had the Master turn the pieces into the new Cyber-Empire. So what do you mean when you say it’s ‘no further forward’?
nothing like the same level of the characterisation 12 underwent
Unfortunately, I hated CapDoc’s characterisation – not quite from Deep Breath to The Doctor Falls, because I was very willing to like him in Deep Breath and I think I gave him most of that first series for him to grow on me. Whittaker’s a massive relief, because her characterisation has grown on me – certainly I’m perfectly happy with her Doctor at this point.
So if we’re judging characterisation styles, what we end up with is that you like the Moffat/Capaldi character arc and I like the Chibnall/Whittaker arc. For that matter, I liked the Graham/Ryan arc last series, which was a very definite characterisation arc.4 March 2020 at 22:25 #69995
But ‘I repeat’ this is as cynical a fanwank as you are likely to experience.
Then we’re just going to have to agree to disagree – because where you see cynical fanwank, I see enormous creative possibilities.
Yes, the BBC can sell the franchise now, into areas where British produced programmes are a niche taste. The actors (m or f) playing the Doctor will be ‘real’ Doctors, but pre-Hartnell, and the continuity of the UK series won’t be affected because of the memory wipe. Yes, they can go for a movie, yes they can go for more video games.
But I’m not sure you realised when you cited Robert Holmes just how much those particular retcons limited future writers. Want a funny regeneration scene where the Doctor goes through loads of bodies in minutes? Only in Comic Relief, Mr Moffat, or you’re going to use up the remaining regenerations in one episode. Need an ‘extra’ Doctor because a previous Doctor refuses to ever play the part again and the script is half written with three Doctors? Congratulations – that’s one of those lives gone.
Fancy a story about a pre-Hartnell Doctor? No. We’ve seen all the pre-Hartnell Doctors. We’re busy pretending they never existed. No, you can’t ask any of the actors to reprise those roles because they weren’t actors in the first place.
Important Actor hints they might like to play the Doctor but doesn’t fancy three whole years in Cardiff? Writer pitches brilliant idea for the Doctor meeting a future self? Production company in Japan would love to produce a Japanese-language Doctor Who and has got some amazing ideas for new monsters? No, no and no.
Only now it’s yes, yes and yes.
It’s like the Star Trek franchise realising that they don’t have to set everything on the bloomin’ Enterprise. We’re no longer confined to twelve (or twenty-four) Doctors. We can also now have different series exploring different parts of the Whoniverse right back to the origins of Gallifrey if we want, because it’s just been established that the Doctor goes that far back. We can have more than one series broadcasting at the same time – I don’t actually care if you think Chibnall’s a bad writer, because what he’s just done is, potentially, to open up an entire creative universe.
This could be brilliant, you know.4 March 2020 at 11:56 #69981
I could point out that the story not only retcons the Doctors history, but the outcome of he Cyberwars themselves (see Revenge of the Cybermen, Ark in Space and the various stories about the mass exodus from solar storms for more information). But what the hell.
Wasn’t that dealt with in The Haunting at Villa Diodati when the Doctor points out that history tells us Shelley should have been in the room? That story also possibly retcons Mary Shelley’s travels with the Doctor as well as the outcomes of the Cyberwars – but the point is that the audience was told history was being changed.
It was one of the mantras of the Moffat era: Time Can Be Changed. There’s more than one possible future and the Doctor can visit those possibilities (see also Pyramids of Mars).
[Edit: That awful Orphan 55 also implied that the future just visited didn’t have to happen]4 March 2020 at 11:35 #69980
Okay, I’m going to pull some quotes from your first post:
That was as cynical a bit of fanwank as you are likely to experience.
Chris Chibnall who is a mediocre mind with a small gift for self selling.
Those two sandwich praise for Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe from the Tom Baker era. Your point is that (another quote):
If every retcon is done for a reason, then what is the reason for this one?
Okay. I did not make a lame attempt to paint you as a bowel-streaked naysayer. Your first post did that. That would’ve passed muster on T’Other place, with the bowel-streaked naysayers on there greeting you as a man and a brother. It’s all there. Insulting the current producer? Check. Praising the Tom Baker era? Check. Use of obscure details of knowledge? Check. Praising a never seen story that only a ‘real fan’ would know about? Check. Rhetorical question implying that the retcon was pointless? Well, that’s what I thought it was. So, check.
Apologies if I sounded somewhat irate, but I was like ‘Where is Phaseshift and what have they done with him?’
Let’s get one thing absolutely straight (and I may sound irate again). This is the first series I’ve really looked forward to rewatching for four solid series. I liked the Whittaker Doctor. I enjoyed the stories. The lead up to the retcon was fun and I’m going to enjoy spotting clues I missed. And I like the retcon; it opens up so very many possibilities for future writers. ‘Invested’. Yup. I tend to be that way when someone tells me I shouldn’t like something I do like because writer X is so, so much a superior writer and writer Y (the one I like) is a talentless hack. Stuff that.
Yes, one of those retcon possibilities is a Doctor Who movie with a bankable star – because even the most bankable British stars Doctor Who has created are still ‘Supporting Actor’ when it comes to Hollywood. I bet the BBC really liked the ‘infinite previous Doctors’ when it was floated to them – or alternatively, that when the BBC told Chibnall they’d like some way of being able to use non-TV Doctors in a franchise, he promptly went ‘that dratted Brain of Morbius scene – I can use that.’
Apparently that’s cynical fanwank. Well, I’m sorry, but show business is a business (I know; I’ve been trying to make a living in it for thirty years) – and the BBC is facing big financial trouble up ahead. Professional TV writers are asked to write stories to order. I’m not really interested in whether the idea of possibly infinite Doctors was pitched by Chibnall (he may well have done, he might have had an Morbius idea buzzing around in his head from his fan days) or to Chibnall.
What I care about is that I enjoyed the story.4 March 2020 at 00:29 #69976
For your average ‘Not We’, all they know (and want to know) is that the Doctor is a renegade Time Lord from Gallifrey who travels in a Police Box and has adventures.
Except that part of that statement isn’t true. Well, it wasn’t true in 1963.
Is there something wrong with a story that plays with the audience ‘knowing’ something that isn’t really true? ‘Everything you think you know is a lie.’ The Doctor isn’t a renegade Time Lord from Gallifrey – that’s a later addition. Chibnall’s just tweaked things so that the history of the programme became history within the programme. The Doctor didn’t start out as a Time Lord.
I think you and @phaseshift keep saying this retcon is pointless and forgetting that it’s a re-retcon. It’s a retcon that takes away some of the additions that have been made through the show’s fifty-odd years. It’s the original additions that were – if what Phaseshift says is true – pointless. Groundwork for a story that never got written? Why shouldn’t a new showrunner decide to play with a storyline that sparked off from an old scene that was never properly explained.
The other point I’d make is that to end the series on a cliffhanger is to say: ‘To Be Continued’. It might be a bit premature to say that the retcon is pointless if we’re only in Act Two of a Three Series arc.
She seems to have had rather more than most though.
Yes. Agreed. The Whittaker Doctor has had a massive amount of character development compared to other Doctors. Other Doctors usually get to develop in a major way just before regeneration.
I’ve discussed in a post above why leaving Ko Sharmus to blow everything up can be seen as completely in character – the character the Whittaker Doctor developed in her first series (I did a blog about it). She is not responsible for everyone, she cannot save everyone, she has to allow people what I supposed we’d now call their own agency. She has to allow Ko Sharmus to take responsibility for his actions.
She learnt to do a ‘flat team structure’ rather than ‘listen to me being brilliant’, and in this second series she’s been re-learning that there are times when the team structure has to be anything but flat; because she really is special. Sometimes she can save everyone – or, at least, someone.
Who is she? She’s the Doctor. But who is the Doctor?
Doctor Who. 😀3 March 2020 at 20:37 #69972
your response is an inelegant method of not answering my main point.
Inelegant, I grant you. But I suppose my main point is that I’m developing a deep suspicion that had the Holmes/Hinchcliffe/Nation plot points been broadcast under the name ‘Chris Chibnall’, you would even now be telling me how awful they are.
I can accept that Holmes may have said that he decided to set up a story that Graham Williams didn’t want to do – but the reality is that he established a retcon in Brain of Morbius and Deadly Assassin which ended up doing sweet FA for later writers. They had to ignore the Brain of Morbius faces and they were stuck with everyone ‘knowing’ exactly how many lives the Doctor had left.
(And don’t get me on to the Valeyard… )
Of course, thirty odd years later we did get a fairly good story out of the regeneration limit. Yay.
The Chibbers retcon (or re-retcon) otoh, frees up future writers. The Doctor now has an unknown number of future regenerations. Might be twelve, might be infinite. People no longer have to ignore that embarrassing and largely unnecessary Brain of Morbius scene. What is its point beyond that?
Well, what I would say is that you’re willing to allow Holmes and Hinchcliffe three series or more to develop their big story, but the closing music has barely played on Chibbers’ second series, and you’re demanding to know the point of the big reveal. This isn’t really holding those writers to the same standard.
What I can see at the moment is that in her first series, the Whittaker Doctor begins to learn to shed her God complex. She can’t save everyone, and everything is not her responsibility. Symbolically, she can begin to turn up to funerals again, even take part in them. I understand why @jimthefish says that her leaving Ko Sharmus to blow up the Master is un-doctorish, but it’s in keeping with the Whittaker Doctor’s character development. She says the situation is her responsibility – but Ko Sharmus points out that she wasn’t the one who chose to send the Cyberium back through time rather than finding a way to destroy it. He was. He’s the one who now has to take responsibility. She lets him do that (no more God complex).
So in the first Whittaker series, she sheds her God complex and returns to being ‘just a traveller who tries to help out’ – but part of that seems to be shedding her Time Lord past. No mention of Time Lords, no Gallifrey, no old enemies. Back to the beginning, back to before the War Games. The Doctor travelling with her family.
In the second Whittaker series, that Time Lord past comes back to bite her – and the series ends with an episode where she discovers that she’s not a Time Lord by birth. Nor is she responsible for their creation (she was a child). Or their deaths (that may have been the Master). As part of that, she discovers that the twelve-regeneration limit was, in her case, a lie.
So what’s the point of the retcon? I’ll have to think about it some more, but I suspect that Chibbers, having tackled the God Complex, is now possibly trying to develop the Doctor’s characterisation away from the ‘rebel Time Lord’ schtick that we’ve been stuck with since The War Games. Trying to explain why the Time Lords seem to absolutely hate the Doctor but are seemingly happy to let the Master(s) do what they like – and possibly remove the need to continually explain why the Doctor never stays to sort out his/her home planet.
Making the Doctor an adopted child who doesn’t know they were adopted. But if you do that, why does the Doctor regenerate? Was it gifted them? Or did they gift it to the Time Lords?
Or was it effectively stolen from them?
And you end up with a retcon.
Me, I’m thinking there’s an Act Three – that ending the series with a cliffhanger was an ‘Act Three’ signal.
Two points: Hinchcliffe was indeed moved because of the fuss – he was swapped with Graham Williams, who’d been developing Target and Williams was told to tone things down to be more suitable for the under-tens. Holmes wasn’t moved – he worked with Williams for a few episodes as script editor, and wrote for him. His decision to move away from Doctor Who for a bit was his own.
Second point is that there was an almighty row about Hinchcliffe using the production team rather than paying actors as per the BBC/Equity agreement – and this might have been another reason for the BBC to eventually decide to move him.3 March 2020 at 13:59 #69964
Can I say that I sincerely hope the story about Robert Holmes is a bit of fanwankery and isn’t actually true? Because if it is, that’s really not one of his best writing ideas. Hey, let’s put a load of production staff images as previous faces of the Doctor in one clip in one story, then put a completely arbitrary limit on the number of regenerations in another story in the following series and this will re-introduce jeopardy because the audience will work out that Tom Baker’s Doctor might actually die…
Seriously? When all that was actually needed was either to talk about a three-regeneration limit or (better) to have a Time Lord die spectacularly in The Deadly Assassin and have the other Time Lords mention that he was killed too quickly for him to regenerate?
But instead we have this weird, over-complicated, two part/two series solution to a problem that doesn’t exist – because everyone over the age of five knows that the hero of an adventure serial only dies in the very last episode ever. Or, in the case of Doctor Who, they ‘die’ when their contract ends. And you’re telling me a professional TV writer thought that this well-known trope was an actual problem he had to deal with?
Next up: Mr Holmes tackles the strange fact that everyone in an adventure serial always finds a perfectly fitting disguise.3 March 2020 at 00:29 #69952
That Who has made it to 50 is remarkable but even I strongly doubt it will make it to a 100.
Really? Sherlock is currently over a hundred and thirty years old and Doctor Who has a much more flexible structure than good old Sherlock. I’d expect the series to be ‘rested’ at some point, but given that we’re now looking at an twenty six year run the first time and a fifteen year run the second – I’d be astonished if it wasn’t brought back. Probably on streaming; I think the time-shifted viewing for Who is up to 40% for some episodes.
I’d agree that the Whittaker Doctor can be ‘undoctorly’, but I still haven’t forgotten when the Capaldi Doctor grabbed his Sonic rather than a drowning child. The Doctor can have undoctorly moments in any regeneration.
The more I think of it, the more the Timeless Child plot was intended to solve a bunch of non-problems
No, the Timeless Child plot was intended to tell an interesting story. Along the way, it solved a number of problems that might have been bugging Chris Chibnall; some people’s creative imagination bounces off stuff like that. He did an entire series where the Doctor met all-new enemies and ignored her past, and now he’s done a series where her past comes back to bite her.
I’ve been saying this for the past few episodes, but how do you have a plot where the Doctor’s past is a vital part of the plot without mentioning that past?2 March 2020 at 22:33 #69949
I would say there are two possibilities. One, given that a big thing was made in Spyfall about encoding hidden information in pictures is that ‘Brendan’ is an encoded version of the Doctor’s/Timeless Child’s life. Should anyone not in the know look at it, they’ll see a fake memory (a ‘legend’) of the Doctor’s life as a Division agent, in which he was chameleon arched as a human baby and was working as a Garda.
For those in the know, the memory can be decoded to reveal the records of the Timeless child.
The other possibility is that ‘Brendan’ really was one of the Doctor’s missions while with the Division (the name Brendan is strongly associated with St Brendan the Voyager, i.e. a traveller) and he had to make some seemingly minor changes to the history of Ireland. But that the genuine memories were then used to encode the Timeless Child information, just as the perfectly real fish was used to encode O’s location.
I was wondering why Chibbers wanted to go down the limitless regenerations route – one reason, I think, is purely symbolic. As David Tennant once said, once the rebooted series survived as a continuation of the pre-gap series, The Doctor joined the ranks of immortal fictional characters. So why not make him/her officially immortal? Killable, yes, but a character who can potentially regenerate forever?
The other is clearing stuff up for future producers. Yeah, Moffat managed to do a dramatically satisfying recharge of the twelve regenerations, but that was partly because he managed to finagle the regenerations to do the reboot in the 50th Anniversary year. It fitted with the entire ‘big event’ feel of that anniversary. What happens down the road when some poor sod of a showrunner has to find a way of working in another twelve regenerations? Why not just alter the mythology so that producers won’t have that (entirely invented and completely unnecessary) problem?
I really liked Ko Sharmus, and wouldn’t be at all surprised if he was more than he made out. He might be a Division agent; working to ensure that the Cybermen don’t wipe out every last human by guarding a handy portal. Or he might be what he said he was – a human who feels that his job is to keep other humans alive and help them escape.2 March 2020 at 17:37 #69942
Tecteun has a vaguely Aztec feel, but I suspect it’s a made-up name. My guess is the tect is from ‘Tekton’ (ancient Greek), followed by the Korean girl’s name ‘Eun’ which Chibbers might know from a Korean film or an actress.
Anyway, the two would fit. Tekton is Greek for ‘builder’, ‘eun’ is Korean for kindness, mercy, charity. Tecteun showed kindness to the abandoned timeless child, charitably brought her home – then used her to build the race of regenerating Time Lords.2 March 2020 at 13:44 #69932
Other lovely, ironic stuff. The Doctor standing in the ruins of the Citadel, automatically telling her fam that they can’t be here because no aliens are allowed on Gallifrey. When she’s the original alien…
Also explains why the xenophobic Time Lords disliked The Doctor so very much. They needed her to become Time Lords, but she was an alien. They must have been vastly relieved when the Division gave them an excuse to wipe her memory.
Do we finally have an answer to the problem of Hartnell and Troughton seeming to have one heart and the Pertwee Doctor arriving on Earth with two? Did the Timeless Child’s regeneration ability also include regenerating to ‘mimic’ her host race?
It’s possible that River’s regeneration ability is the reason Chibbers thought he could rework canon into the Doctor being the source of regeneration in Time Lords. If regeneration comes from repeated exposure to the time vortex during conception and fetal development, then that’s possibly how the Doctor herself gained the ability. If you notice, Chibbers was the writer who decided Amy and Rory’s post-River son Anthony was adopted, so I suspect he knows this bit of the Moffat era quite well.2 March 2020 at 13:31 #69931
Namely that by removing the previous Gallifreyan ruling elite (the Pythia) as precursors to the Time Lords you end up without the Sisterhood of Karn, meaning you end up with no War Doctor.
You’re confusing history and pre-history, I think. Plus you’re not allowing for the tendency of succeeding regimes to rewrite the previous history, and also not allowing for the Master deciding to telescope several hundred millennia into a couple of lines.
Okay, new canon. Everything we have seen the Doctor do on screen is real (for a given value of real). Chibbers has been extremely careful to establish that – realising that the Master isn’t the most reliable of narrators, he’s had the Doctor meet up with many old foes and some new ones who namechecked other old foes.
What that means is that we have the Sisterhood of Karn and the Priesthood of Pythia, because we’ve seen them both on screen. However, the off-screen history of how we got them may be a pile of self-serving propaganda invented by the Rassillon regime. The Sisterhood of Karn, with their excellent knowledge of regeneration, may in fact be the followers of Tecteun – you could see why that little tidbit might be wiped out of history.
As to why a canonically long lived race (whose bodies can last millennia between regenerations) would want to live still longer – I suspect we’re being handed a new myth about the quest for immortality. A Gallifreyan equivalent of the Philosopher’s Stone, except the ‘Stone’ is a living child.
You might be right, however, that the Master suspects a ‘terrible truth’. For one thing, Timeless-Child-Doctor regenerates because of a childish squabble over a toy and the Master’s strangely insistent that it was just two kids playing, an unfortunate accident. For another, the episode isn’t called ‘The Timeless Child.’ It’s called ‘The Timeless Children‘.
Who was the other child? And does the Master have a horrible suspicion that it’s him? That he, too, doesn’t know his true history?2 March 2020 at 00:26 #69910
It seems to be a bit of a ‘marmite’ episode, but I’m firmly in the ‘loved it’ camp. Sacha Dhawan was utterly brilliant – broken, and malignant with flashes of something almost like empathy. Did he really say ‘Good luck, humans’? And yes, I can imagine that discovering he’s not just related to the Doctor but is (in a way) her descendent would tear him apart. I may think Missy would have coped better, but the Dhawan Master is considerably less stable.
I also loved that the ‘fam’ have grown enough that they can handle themselves without the Doctor.
And yes, great backstory. Everything we’ve seen on screen happened, but there is now so much more to find out about what happened before the Hartnell Doctor arrived on Earth. After feeling that we know everything there is to know about John Smith from Gallifrey – where he went to school, his family, his schoolfriends, his house-mother – we now find out that we don’t know anything about her at all. 🙂
We’re back to ‘Doctor Who?’ I think that’s a good thing.28 February 2020 at 23:11 #69895
Yet, I would argue it is the Master who is the one who is (always) guilty of hubris, and by identifying with Ozymandius he has both mis-read Shelley and revealed his own shortcomings
But has he?
I agree that the Master’s tendency to misread human creative works is legendary, but if this incarnation is post-Missy, I’d argue that it’s entirely possible for him to have read that poem and thought ‘F*ck, I’m Ozymandias. Complete with giant statues to myself that always get pulled down.’ Missy, at least at the end of her incarnation, was self-aware enough for that.
The other alternative is that in misquoting Shelley, the Master is identifying himself with the Time Lords and their attitude to other races. ‘Look at my works, ye mighty and despair.’ Well, look at them now (which line was, I think, applied to Brendan).
Yeah, I’m wondering what was so important that the Doctor turns up after the massive devastating war has done all its devastating? Had the Cyberium or Cyberiad, or Cyber-wotsit only just been sent back after the final big battles? So she couldn’t get there any earlier, as that would change the events that sent her forward in the first place?
Incidentally, Blenkinsop, I hadn’t actually connected the Master’s nom de guerre of ‘O’ with ‘Ozymandias’. That’s interesting. Maybe Jim is going to get his squee after all.28 February 2020 at 12:37 #69891
I can’t help thinking we’re somehow missing the significance of the Master misquoting Shelley. Did he just think it was a good line? Does he know that Shelley was the Guardian for the Cyberium?
And in addition, he’s placed himself as Ozymandias. The one who boasts ‘look at my works, ye mighty’ and yet is now another fallen statue in a fallen Empire.26 February 2020 at 23:46 #69867
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Yeats and the Irish Literary Revival helped make ‘fantastical’ political in Southern Ireland, but I think he might have been riffing off an older tradition. You don’t get much more political than Dean Swift, even if his most famous work is now seen as a children’s story.
Yeah, I think the gap is because there just wasn’t much in the way of Irish publishing companies to publish with until the 1980’s. Not unless you were writing SF in the Irish language, anyway. The Irish diaspora meant that the population was falling right up to the 1960’s, so you’re looking at a market of about 4 million people in Southern Ireland versus a market of ten times that many if you sell your book to a London publisher…26 February 2020 at 19:42 #69863
To be honest, when the robber pulled out his pistol my first thought was dissident Republicans, but I can see why an Irish reporter might not be too keen on saying that. We in the UK tend to see the troubles as Northern Ireland, but most Gardai deaths on duty (that aren’t accidents) result from a crime investigation that turns out to be investigating a crime committed by armed paramilitaries.
You are absolutely right: do a little digging and loads of Irish SF turns up. Fortunately, I didn’t have to do the digging: Jack Fennell did his PhD on Irish SF. Worldcon 2019 (sadly, I couldn’t go) was held in Dublin, and Jack very kindly allowed them to publish a pdf copy of the book list in ‘A Short Guide to Irish SF’.
I think he argues that the problem with Irish SF is simply that the Irish literary establishment doesn’t want to be Irish. Or rather, they wanted to create a new idea of ‘Irish’, where Ireland takes its rightful place among grown up, serious nations. Traditional Irish stories are fantastical; they didn’t want to go there, they wanted ‘serious, meaningful’ literature about the famine. Grown up stuff, not kiddie style SF. As well, the people who could have become Ireland’s scientific establishment (and wrote SF on the side) had mostly emigrated to where the research money was – put the two together, and you get ‘hidden’ SF, where everyone goes ‘Bob Shaw was an Irish SF writer?’
Anyway, Jack Fennell’s Worldcon article is here.26 February 2020 at 15:12 #69857
The Easter Rising was in 1916, but Brendan’s Garda mentor (do we ever find out his name?) is wearing a Garda uniform when he’s investigating the finding of Baby Brendan. Which means that has to be 1922 or later (unless we’re doing a Whoniverse thing of fudging the dates/uniforms because it’s not our universe).
So when Brendan is seen retiring it would be 1982 or early eighties and he’s stayed in the Gardai for as long as he legally could. This is all if we’re seeing ‘real’ events, of course, and not some kind of simulation.
Now, if he does arrive in 1922, that would mean that he’s probably 18 in 1940. So we have a very interesting vibe of a soldier aged Brendan making a deliberate choice to be a Guardian of the Peace when the world outside Ireland was in the middle of a deadly war. Remind you of anyone else who hated the very thought of being a soldier?
So is this a simulation in which ‘Brendan’ is a cyberman who really wants to be a guardian of the peace, dreaming some kind of fluffy Irish fantasy? Or is it a hint that we’re seeing a hidden ‘guardian’? Or does it fit with Ko Sharmus, who’s chosen to guard the portal in the middle of a deadly war?26 February 2020 at 12:01 #69852
the supposed unlikelihood of one of the handful of survivors being a nurse, another a teacher.
I found those comments a bit odd, to be honest. Soldiers wouldn’t be the last people to survive: they’d have died – or the good ones would – protecting the nurse, the teacher or fighting the Cybermen. The people told to refugee out would be the people who could keep human civilisation going – like the teacher – or people alive – like the nurse.26 February 2020 at 00:09 #69846
Oh, I think the clock has a meaning and I don’t think you’re grasping at straws. The camera focus on the clock wasn’t casual – the actor placed it quite deliberately for its very own close-up and that close-up was long enough to have made a real live actor a very happy bunny.
But I think its significance is as a symbol of time rather than there being anything significant about the clock.25 February 2020 at 23:33 #69844
I had a good look at a freeze-frame of the clock and I’d say it’s an ordinary carriage clock with Roman numerals.
The only odd thing about it is that the Roman numerals look a bit funny – at first I thought they were in the wrong places, but it’s just that the right hand stroke of the X is really thin and difficult to see.25 February 2020 at 19:44 #69838
Or maybe they were entities who simply assumed the appearance of the father and the senior policeman.
I noticed the different reactions when I rewatched as well. I think you’re probably right, Mudlark – the minders assumed the appearance of the two people that Brendan would trust most in all the world. His father, and the policeman who mentored him. Because before that final scene, neither of those people act as if they know who Brendan truly is – the policeman is completely shocked when Brendan wakes up, and the father is visibly wondering if he’s fostered Superman.
If they’re TimeLords, they were also chameleon arched without their memories and came to pick up Old Brendan. Which is, I suppose, possible, though as I said up above, it would be a terrible pun on the old ‘Gallifrey is in Ireland’ gag if that entire Irish village consists of chameleon arched Gallifreyan refugees.
I suspect the cliff to beach problem was technical: they did or planned the cliff top shot with Brendan being shot in the chest and falling backwards, which looks really good. Then they realised when filming at the bottom that they couldn’t get both actors and the cliff in the shot unless Brendan had his head to the cliff.
So they probably decided that either it enhanced the dream-like feel of the fall/coming back to life or that Brendan could have flipped over in flight, so to speak. Not terrible continuity, just a camera angle problem.24 February 2020 at 17:50 #69817
Oh, and an Irish Brendan is almost certainly named after St Brendan the Navigator, or sometimes St Brendan the Voyager. He sets off with a bunch of companions and has many exciting adventures, finally finding the Blessed Isle, or the Isle of St Brendan.
Remind you of anyone? Especially considering the long-running fan joke (repeated by RTD in Human Nature) that Gallifrey is clearly somewhere in Ireland…24 February 2020 at 17:44 #69816
Okay, so I had a chance to rewatch this episode – some thoughts on that.
Firstly, while I’m going to wait and see what next week’s like, I think I may have to apologise to CC for saying his ‘future-set’ episodes aren’t that good. Given the massive amount of information that had to be given to the audience, this was a very well paced first act.
@jimthefish – I agree that Graham has a definite flub in which he starts to say ‘I’m the Doc’ and then changes it to ‘I’m the most normal person’. Even if it’s a Billy flub, I’d still have to ask why he’d start to do that particular line. Running off-screen gag? Or he says it next episode?
Graham has now been mistaken for the Doctor three times. Skyfall. Fugitive of the Judoon. Can You Hear Me? In the first two, it’s blatant, in Can You Hear Me he gets the vision of the trapped godlet that one would think should have been sent to the Doctor…
And now, as you’ve spotted, he starts to tell someone he’s the Doctor.
Agreed that Chibbers didn’t do a great job of making us care about the last remaining human refugees – sorry, we’ve spent the budget on the Cybermen and the Brendan subplot so there are only six speaking parts plus one non-speaking. But what I did notice was that they all had traditional Doctor Who Sci-fi names. Very traditional – Ravioli, sorry Ravio, Meerkat, sorry Feekat, Ascot, no Bescot, Fuckitt, no Fuskle, oh let’s just do a random letters and vowels thing, sorry Yedlarmi and Ethan.
Uh, Ethan? How did Ethan creep in there? And people on T’Other Place have pointed out that Ethan is a very knowledgeable young man.
RyAN. BrendAN. EthAN. Could be some writery subconscious thing, but is there some kind of connection between Ryan, Brendan and Ethan? And plus, while the Last Remaining Humans seemed to include several disposable characters, a lot of effort was spent making us like Brendan. He had an entire subplot to himself, from babyhood to ‘death’.
The props department seem to love their details with Doctor Who, and one thing I noticed was that Abandoned Baby Brendan had the most lovely white baby quilt with flowers and stuff – and a definite ‘circular’ motif. Very Gallifreyan.
@missrori – I still think ‘The Timeless Child’, but there is a very ‘Doctor’ motif in that he’s a Garda, which the script spells out means ‘guard’ (a guardian?). He spends his human life wanting to protect people, which is very Doctorish and he tries to talk the thief down in a very Doctorish way.
Bonkers theories – one idea I had back when the Doctor had killed billions of kids was to wonder why the Time Lords hadn’t hidden their children using chameleon arches. Now we’ve been deliberately reminded of that tech via Ruth, I’m again wondering if the surviving Gallifreyans are hiding among humans.23 February 2020 at 21:09 #69801
Anyway, my bet is that Brendan IS the Timeless Child, and his ‘minders’ are responsible for wiping his memory at the end of every ‘life’.23 February 2020 at 20:56 #69799
Yeah, I thought Captain Jack as well. Captain Jack became immortal as a by-product of the Time Vortex, so if Brendan is a similar type of immortal there’s a fair chance that he’s the Timeless Child or something related to the Time Lords.
But that explains why Captain Jack had a scene in Fugitive from the Judoon.