Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
6 August 2013 at 12:04 #15544
@miapatrick and @thommck –
it is interesting that people are more bothered about a physically visible age gap than the fact he really is ancient.
I think that’s the difference between ‘show’ and ‘tell’. We can see the actor’s physical age, we’re told that he’s ancient. The instinctive reaction is to the apparent age; we’re programmed to judge age by appearance.
6 August 2013 at 11:51 #15541Regarding the ginger – I think red hair is slightly less than 6% in England, higher in Scotland and Wales. So while we need a ginger Doctor in the next few regenerations, the fact that they haven’t yet found a Ginger Doctor isn’t definite evidence of Gingerism. 😀
Likewise, ethnic minority. As @scaryb‘s pointed out, Peter Capaldi would have been considered ‘ethnic minority’ back when the programme started – he’s of part Italian descent. Nowadays, the son of an Italian ice cream seller is apparently considered ‘white middle-class’. To which I say, thank God things have moved on at least that much. 😕
6 August 2013 at 11:24 #15535(because its a load of codswallop really)
You’re watching a programme about a time travelling alien in a police box and you’ve only just noticed? But River’s conception is a very soft SF extrapolation of a hard science fact – certain types of radiation affect a foetus. The Doctor doesn’t realise this because he hasn’t consciously connected his own genetics with a constant exposure to the radiations associated with the Time Vortex.
You’re going around in circles with this one. Paraphrasing what I’m getting: ‘I don’t like human TimeLord sex, therefore neither departure made much sense.’ Which is another way of saying that you don’t like the evidence, and so will ignore it. 😉
Leela’s departure didn’t make much sense. Even the actors concerned were going ‘where the *!@% is this in the script!’ But Susan’s departure makes so much sense that the Asexual Doctor Preservation Society generally insist she isn’t really his granddaughter – even going so far as to fail to spot Susan going into the TARDIS in The Name of The Doctor. 😈
What does this mean for the Next Doctor? (getting back on topic)
If they’re going back to Hartnell, the Doctor’s going to be more aware of his comparative age, and is more likely to mentor his Companions than fancy them. The Hartnell pattern with Companions was a female-male pairing, where any longing gazes were likely to be directed to their fellow Companion. There’s various versions of the fate of Ben and Polly, for example, but they generally end up with their getting together.
What might help is if River’s still around. The Smith Doctor clearly saw himself as a widower in the last part of S7; the Capaldi Doctor might not. Or he might; one of the undercurrents to the Hartnell Doctor was that he and his granddaughter had lost everything; ‘displaced persons’ (nowadays referred to as refugees) were very common in 1963.
The reason I’m saying ‘it might help’ is that @jimthefish is right – kids today expect adults to be paired up. Or in the process of pairing up. But they will get ‘my wife is in a different time zone/living in a Virtual Reality Database.’
5 August 2013 at 20:43 #15497I’d like to go on record; I think it is time that the queen was played by a man.
A lot of people seem to have taken that absolutely straight and not realised it was a joke, and quite a clever joke. The role of ‘The Queen’ will be played by a man. It’s just that we’ll then call that role ‘The King’.
😀
5 August 2013 at 15:39 #15485No doubt @bluesqueakpip will tell us that there was just such a scene
Of course. Not for the Doctor, but Susan went off with David Campbell, and Leela married some personality-less Citadel guard by the name of Andred. Time Lords (or at least, Gallifreyans) can therefore be attracted to humans. Humans, as established in the very first series of AG Who, can be attracted to just about anything. 🙂
So the Doctor’s marriage to River Song is perfectly in keeping with BG Who. It’s not the first time a Gallifreyan has married a human (and River’s a human Time Lord). In TV terms, Alex Kingston’s age also puts her in the category of ‘older woman’ – so stop being naughty.
5 August 2013 at 11:29 #15450@jimthefish – pick ‘Father’ if you don’t like ‘Grandfather’. Or ‘Mentor’ – which McCoy’s Doctor was to Ace. Pertwee’s Doctor was often rather fatherly.
The minor problem there has always been with the Doctor is that – for the purposes of pulling in the audience – he has a tendency to go for what David Tennant called ‘easy on the eye’ Companions. Now, for the first time since the reboot, they have to play that with an actor who looks old enough to be the average Companion’s Dad.
With previous Doctors they’ve gone for best mate (Donna, Amy/Rory) boyfriend (Clara, Rose) and unrequited love interest (Martha). Personally, I think ‘best mate’ was the one that really worked well. But I’m not sure you’re going to be able to pull that off too well with the difference in age and acting experience; which is why I’m wondering if they’re going to be going ‘back to the beginning’ in the Doctor/Companion relationship.
5 August 2013 at 10:43 #15441I think suggesting the Grandfather/Grandchild relationship for the Doctor/Companion is going a little too OTT – he’s not that old. A 25 year old companion is likely to have a 70+ year old grandparent !
Peter Capaldi is exactly the age William Hartnell was when he took the role of the first ever Doctor. Hartnell first appeared on-screen because Ian and Barbara wanted to find Susan’s Grandfather. Susan called him ‘Grandfather’ throughout his relationship. He also had a ‘grandfather’ style relationship with Vicki, the Companion after Susan.
If you think mid to late fifties is too young for an actor to play that, you’ll have to fight against the show’s history. 🙂
5 August 2013 at 00:19 #15325any subsequent Doctor cast in the role might feel a bit of a second-hand Sally if they didn’t get the same treatment
Any subsequent Doctor cast in the role will probably be saying “Anything but a repeat of Capaldi’s announcement. Anything. You can even announce it exclusively in the Daily Mail if you just don’t announce it on ‘Doctor Who Live’ …”
👿
4 August 2013 at 23:57 #15320I would worry if all casting decisions from this point on (remember, they needed someone sufficiently ‘big-name’ to justify that live show tonight) were predicated on how well-known the actor/actress was, to the detriment of finding the best person to do the role.
I honestly wouldn’t worry about that too much. Matt Smith was relatively unknown. So was Tom Baker – so the history of the show suggests that an unknown actor might well be the best choice.
And I think you’re putting ‘cart’ before ‘horse’ with that show tonight. @jimthefish was saying a few days ago that the new Doctor had to be a name – simply because they’d only put on a live ‘extravaganza’ if the new Doctor had instant recognition factor. Matt Smith did not get a live show; he got a recorded documentary (which I think might have been on BBC3).
As for the guest cast often being big-name stars, I think that’s now because everyone and their kid sister wants to be on Doctor Who.
4 August 2013 at 23:16 #15305I’d actually enjoy the Great Intelligence coming back in its Richard E. Grant incarnation – because while Matt Smith was certainly trying to face Grant down, he wasn’t quite making it.
Now, a Grant vs Capaldi face-off…
4 August 2013 at 22:49 #15294For those who enjoy the Confidentials: the one for the first episode in this double parter. Sadly, I can’t find the full version of the second part.
4 August 2013 at 22:35 #15288they appear to have been there simply because they weren’t on holiday, and they’ve worked on the BBC before.
Given that the BBC were, earlier in the year, saying that the new Doctor would be announced early autumn – there was almost certainly another bloody leak.
@craig – I trust the production team; the problem appears to be once it gets beyond the production team and into the wider BBC. But that show had all the signs of something arranged in a tearing hurry with whoever was available.
4 August 2013 at 21:27 #15254It’s a good direction for the show, I think. In this fiftieth Anniversary year, it reverts to a ‘Hartnell style’. An actor in his fifties, well known for hard-edged parts. It takes the Doctor away from having to be a younger ‘action hero’ and loosens up the casting for subsequent producers.
And also, @Shazzbot, it does mean that Capaldi’s Doctor is much more likely to be ‘Grandfather’ than ‘Boyfriend’.
4 August 2013 at 21:03 #15249@craig – well, since the Smith Doctor imprinted on Amelia Pond like a little baby duck, it wouldn’t be surprising if his next incarnation has a Scottish accent. Didn’t they blame the Tennant Doctor’s mockney on Rose?
4 August 2013 at 20:52 #15242@craig – yes. Population of Scotland as percentage of total UK population – 8.7%
Population of Scottish Doctors as percentage of total Doctor population – 23.1%
😀
4 August 2013 at 19:58 #15217@wolfweed – this new Doctor would quite possibly rip the multi-coloured patchwork coat into pieces, then stuff it right up a Sontaran’s – err, probic vent.
😀
4 August 2013 at 19:51 #15211@Shazzbot – Never mind the bonkers theorising about how Clara and the Capaldi Doctor interact, what about River and the Capaldi Doctor?
That’s something I’d like to see. 🙂
4 August 2013 at 19:42 #15201@Shazzbot – He also played an entirely different role in Torchwood – clearly the Capaldi face is also scattered across time. So it’ll either be a plot point, or more probably some joke like ‘is that a Roman nose?’ and then they’ll ignore it. 😀
4 August 2013 at 19:34 #15186But no trailer…
4 August 2013 at 19:30 #15180Ooh, I’m so happy. Brilliant choice 😉
4 August 2013 at 19:27 #15173Peter Capaldi! That’s going to be fantastic!
3 August 2013 at 13:54 #14981I suspect they are in it, in one form or another,
@phaseshift – for most of the older Doctors, audio would be the way to go. We counted them in, and we counted them out. We know how old they looked when they regenerated. The obvious age difference would need some kind of ‘Dalek ageing ray’ or ‘effect of two TARDIS’s colliding’ explanation. Voice-overs won’t be such a problem, and would permit new dialogue instead of having to reuse old footage.
But Paul McGann is the one remaining Doctor (now, is he BG? or is he the Interregnum Doctor?) who can appear on screen without any ‘ageing’ explanation. We never saw him regenerate – so, like McCoy’s Seventh Doctor when he regenerated, he could have spent long enough in that regeneration to look, say, sixteen human years older than he did at first. 🙂
3 August 2013 at 13:46 #14980@phaseshift – yeah, this seemed to be the best one to do as two episodes/one week; I think you really need a week between The Pandorica Opens and The Big Bang to try and approximate the original impact. Everything had gone so disastrously wrong by the end of TPO, that week’s wait seemed endless.
But Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone feels much more like one story over 90 minutes. Instead of TPO/TBB’s two-act-play-with-interval.
3 August 2013 at 13:42 #14979Hmmm… I think this particular discussion is going to struggle against the ‘new Doctor’ excitement. But anyway, some comments.
I found myself very conscious that this was the first story filmed for the Eleventh/Moffat era; especially now that we’re nearing the end of that period. Matt seems – not tentative, but less layered than he’ll later become. I remember watching The Name of The Doctor and thinking how he’d grown as an actor throughout his run; you can see that here. Especially in Flesh and Stone, when the Eleventh’s underlying anger is played as straightforward fury.
And there are the funny bits; the flirting between Eleven and River. The obvious irritation that he is (however much River tries to avoid that spoiler) being effectively pushed into an arranged marriage – by Time itself.
The Doctor: Time is not the boss of me.
A lot of the Moffat era develops that theme. And generally – whenever The Doctor says that line, or some variation of that line, the answer comes back -yes, Time IS the boss of you. As it does here. He rather obviously fancies River – but every interaction is coloured by the fact that she clearly knows him well and he barely knows her at all. He doesn’t even know that she isn’t yet a Professor…
The Angels: given that they go back to never seeing them move in The Angels Take Manhattan, I think everyone agreed that seeing them move was a mistake. Oh, well. Some things you don’t find out until you try them. I vaguely get what he was groping towards with ‘walk like you can see’ – if the response is instinctual, a person moving, confidently, will trigger the response; you won’t really be watching for the blink unless you’re in full hunting mode (which they’re not – their attention is, according to the lines, now on the Crack). It’s when you stand still and shut your eyes…
But it didn’t work very well. The fact that they can choose to snap your neck did, for me. It made them nastier, less ‘lunch’ orientated, and made it extremely clear that these are intelligent creatures who can plan (and they do have a plan in Blink). They want you out of the way, but they’re not hungry? Because right now, there’s all the energy they can eat coming from the crashed spaceship? You’re dead – and not through living to death.
Production funnies: Matt Smith’s hair! Where a hairstyle that clearly worked just fine in the studio develops serious problems on a windswept Welsh beach. They tried tons of hair gel, they tried having it completely swept back – but in the end they just had to get the scissors out and give him a quick trim. In the middle of the shoot. 😉
@craig – The cracks get explained a bit in The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang – they’re the first signs of the TARDIS exploding throughout space and time.
3 August 2013 at 12:17 #14972@Shazzbot – Withnail & I was a film. The ‘movie’ wasn’t a movie. As Paul McGann quite correctly says, it was a TV pilot.
Yes, you often become well known through some iconic film role. That’s normal; that’s understood.
But you don’t normally become even better known for your role in a TV pilot that didn’t get picked up. It must feel extremely weird; your role was officially a ‘failure’ (didn’t get picked up) but everybody knows you as that ‘failure’.
3 August 2013 at 12:11 #14969I wonder if @danmartinuk will be live-blogging it for the Guardian?
@Shazzbot – Hope so. If it’s an unknown actor, expect lots of ‘they’re too young/too old/ears stick out. In fact, if they’re a well known actor, expect that, plus ‘I can’t see them as the Doctor because of their performance in Role X’.
If it’s a woman, expect lots of ‘The Doctor is and always has been a MAN!!!’
If it’s a black actor/actress, expect lots of ‘I’m not a racist, but…’
And if Moffat wants to really do a Take That! at the fans, the new Doctor will be an American. 😈
Whatever happens, it’ll be fun….
😀
3 August 2013 at 12:02 #14967@scaryb – The Smith/Tennant interview was specifically about the 50th.
Though it would be incredibly funny if we find out tomorrow that the next Doctor really is John Hurt…
3 August 2013 at 11:48 #14965@Shazzbot – quite probably the latter. If I’d been spending the last sixteen years wondering why I was getting regular ‘Guest of Honour’ gigs on the Convention circuit as a result of one six week job, I’d be cheering inside. As he says in the interview, the other guys had to put so much more work in; at least he’s now finally, officially appearing on the BBC produced programme playing The Eighth Doctor.
And also, in the interview, he’s firstly not playing a part – which makes a difference; and secondly he does mention that he’s very jetlagged.
But yes, you cynical soul, perhaps he was thinking inside ‘and now I’m going to act as if I’m lying! Ha! See all those Internet boards light up with speculation! Take that, fans!’
😀
3 August 2013 at 11:23 #14960@scaryb – true. As @Shazzbot says, my natural inclination is an optimistic ‘it’ll be alright on the night’ one – at least when it comes to anything like theatre, television or conventions. 🙂 And it could be that the BBC has decided to go all jazzy because somebody has been paying attention to complaints about the lack of 50th Anniversary events.
3 August 2013 at 11:16 #14957@scaryb – yes, there are a lot of ‘tells’ when McGann reaches the 50th Anniversary question, aren’t there? Whether he’s in it or not, he knows more than he’s letting on; even if all he knew at the interview was that he was on pencil for possible filming.
And now I come to think of it, in the David-and-Matt interview released after the finale, David said (about being a Doctor) ‘somebody we can’t mention seems a little bemused by it all’. After the John Hurt reveal, I was presuming they meant Hurt – but that ‘a little bemused’ would also fit McGann perfectly. Bless him. 🙂
2 August 2013 at 23:35 #14919What’s Dr Watson doing with that dodgy moustache?
@chickenelly – trying to look like he is in no way related to any hobbits and is definitely not about to have a nice chat with Smaug?
😀
2 August 2013 at 15:35 #148662 August 2013 at 15:12 #14863Actually, it sounds like they’re taking their cue from a Comic Con panel. 😈 Audience Cosplay, questions-from-the-audience/viewers, past Doctors on the panel…
But will we see the trailer?
2 August 2013 at 14:50 #14856it’s getting less and less likely that we’re going to go ‘who the hell’s that?’ A ‘name’ seems likely…
It’s the tin dog! I keep telling you, it’s the tin dog!
But I agree; all this razzamatazz? Matt Smith got a documentary after one of the specials. He didn’t get prime time BBC1.
Prime time BBC1 suggests that new Doctor is either black, female or a ‘name’. Or possibly a black female ‘name’, or any combination thereof. 🙂 Whatever – this feels like the Beeb expects the audience’s collective jaws to drop and every one to go ‘Did I just hear that right? THEY’RE the new Doctor?’
Whoever (pun intended). At this point I really will take the tin dog, providing someone convinces me it can act…
2 August 2013 at 00:17 #14790Now, any bets on the tin dog?
I’ll get me coat…
2 August 2013 at 00:16 #14788The big announcement at midnight was the date and time of the official announcement. An announcement about an announcement.
Sunday, 4th August, BBC1, 7pm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/articles/The-Next-Doctor-will-be-revealed-on-Sunday-04-August
1 August 2013 at 21:23 #14779@phaseshift – the only thing that’s certain is that I know nothing. And I will watch whatever I get. No Paul McGann? I’ll just sigh, and enjoy watching John Hurt.
Frankly, if the Eleventh Doctor regenerates into a tin dog, you’d probably hear me saying: “Tin dog? Well, that could be interesting”.
😀
1 August 2013 at 17:32 #14759Good grief. Is this “Shipping” an American thing?
Nope. There was quite a lot of shipping going on in the Harry Potter fandom – until JK Rowling sensibly squashed it by informing us firmly who got married to whom.
And, spare me, are there Shippers in the world of Doctor Who fandom?
Doctor Who ones? Well, there’s the Doctor/Rose, of course. Rose is his Won Tru Luv. Even if he did get married to someone else. 😈
Then there’s Doctor/Master. I will say you could just about imagine the two of them (in their Tennant and Simm incarnations, anyway) having had a brief fling when they were both young men.
And finally there’s Doctor/Amy, though in fairness it’s often Doctor/Amy/Rory, and even Madame Vastra wondered about that one.
But as @pedant says, let this forum avoid all Shipping. Shipping is notorious for becoming … fraught.
1 August 2013 at 17:23 #14757@htpbdet – I think we’d better agree to differ on this one, because you may be thinking that I’m making statements that are ‘a little rich’, but I’m certainly thinking you are. We just disagree, okay? Let’s leave it there, before we end up with a flaming row.
Incidentally, I quite like Eric Roberts in some of his roles, but I will say he was absolute pants as the Master…
🙂
1 August 2013 at 16:37 #14751Just consider in the preceding months I’ve sat through Twin Dilemma and Time and the Rani and I consider this the easiest of the three to revisit!
Let me just say that if we ever, ever decide to rewatch either Twin Dilemma or Time and the Rani, I will not be joining in. I remember Twin Dilemma quite well, thank you, after only one viewing. And not for good reasons. 😈
It does seem that you should never let the Doctor near a hospital unless you want your employees to be going home in their scrubs, doesn’t it? That the Doctor’s a thieving git is generally played either for laughs – or downgraded by pointing out that he does save the world a lot. Having your clothes/wallet/remote control nicked or your cash point broken into is a small price to pay.
Having rewatched, it does seem clear that RTD analysed this movie (and the feedback) very carefully; and Steven Moffat seems to have done the same. You can see the things they’ve carried over – the Companion being the viewpoint character, for example. And the things they’ve learnt from. All three AG ‘regeneration’ stories (if you include Rose) have invading aliens. Lots of invading aliens, and often with big spaceships as well. All three second episodes have used the TARDIS to travel through time and space. Hello, I’m the Doctor. And I keep Earth from getting invaded. And then I travel in time and space.
While in the movie, the Doctor had brought the problem with him. He wasn’t protecting the Earth – he’d accidentally endangered it in the first place. That’s what aliens do. But, since he’s half-human on his Mum’s side, he’s going to try and stop it.
Bleargh.
1 August 2013 at 15:43 #14747But you are right: If RTD had been happy with Martha, she would have done Season 4.
And this is what annoys me so much about the whole ‘Martha’ debate. Freema Agyeman, however much you may dislike her, DID do Season 4. She did five episodes in Season 4. She also did three episodes of Torchwood. She would have done more if she hadn’t, by that time, been very busy doing Law and Order.
Clearly everyone needs to work for RTD, because when he’s unhappy with an actor/character, he … re-employs them?
Or, we could take the story given out by RTD as accurate. He thought of Martha as a one-series character. Because Freema Agyeman had been told she was only in the show for one season, her agent was looking for other work for her. So she auditioned for the part in Law and Order, got offered it – and accepted it; because as far as she knew, she was only in Who for one series. Thereafter, RTD could only work in Martha around her other commitments.
I realise this is not as exciting as ‘he had a problem with her, so she was fired,’ but it fits the known facts a lot better.
1 August 2013 at 13:34 #14737@htpbdet and @nick – you have to address him as @pedant, or he doesn’t get the email.
But I can answer that one: a ‘Spuffy shipper’ is someone who prefers, sometimes very vocally indeed, the Spike/Buffy relationship to the Angel/Buffy relationship in Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
It’s a contraction of ‘Spike and Buffy relationship’.
1 August 2013 at 00:01 #14715@chickenelly. I do indeed mean the masterpiece that is the movie. Which do you fancy as a metaphor? The Doctor gets dipped in plastic or the Doctor gets half his brain taken over by the Cybermen?
Sort of made it, though by Part 7 I was basically listening to the dialogue and flicking back to watch only occasionally. It really was worse than I remembered – I think at the time, I was so pleased to have any Who back at all, I forgave it a lot. But now we have the programme back on air I can recognise that:- the movie is dire.
Positives: nice TARDIS set, good regeneration scene. As @phaseshift says, some of the direction is great and Paul McGann gives a cracker of a performance – there are many good scenes in there. But the overall structure is very generic 1990’s US television – and it really doesn’t fit with the ‘man and his time machine’ format that is Doctor Who. They needed some invading aliens. Or reprise the very first episode and have the Doctor accidentally take Grace and Chang Lee to another planet, and the problem is getting back.
But what you’ve got is Eric Roberts in a pair of green contact lenses. And he is bloody awful (disclaimer: I’ve seen him be very good in other stuff he’s done. But here, he’s awful).
Yes, it is a cautionary tale of the co-producers deciding they know best what will work for the States. And in the process, destroying what makes the show work.
31 July 2013 at 23:19 #14714@whisht – and you did it pretty well, too. Or should that be ‘do it pretty well’? 🙂
31 July 2013 at 22:36 #14708Okay. In evidence, I present the lines:
Amy: Get your coat, love, the Doctor’s in.” and
Clara: Does this work?
The Doctor: Eh?
Clara:Is this actually what you do? Do you just crook your finger and people just jump in your snog box and fly away?Now, I get that in text these are ambiguous, but the on-screen delivery is very much saying ‘do you seriously think you’re irresistible’? Amy’s line is a variation on ‘Get your coat, love, you’ve pulled’ and Clara’s equally saying ‘does this chat up routine actually work?’ And they are, both, finding that attitude more than a bit funny.
I’m going back to watch the movie now. I may be some time.
31 July 2013 at 22:24 #14705Oh, God. It’s actually worse than I remember.
I’m halfway through part 6, and I’m not sure I’m gonna make it. 😕
31 July 2013 at 22:11 #14702@Shazzbot – really? Perhaps we just have a different sense of humour; it was fairly clear to me that both Amy and Clara were indulging in a bit of leg-pulling.
31 July 2013 at 21:44 #14697@Shazzbot: well, the ‘rather funny’ evidence for Amy is
and Clara calling the TARDIS a ‘snogbox’ and finding his attitude a bit hilarious is in Bells of St John.
Catherine Tate was, I think, 39 when first playing Donna and 40 when she was a regular Companion. So we’re both right. 😉
31 July 2013 at 19:32 #14691why did Martha assume that she could be ‘the One’ for the Doctor, so early in their relationship
Well, to be fair to Martha (and RTD’s writing of her), if a guy does everything he can think of to get you in his ‘snog-box’, then whisks you off for an exciting holiday, then ‘accidentally’ books you in a room with only one bed – what are you going to think? As Steven Moffat later has Amy say: the Doctor’s not so much giving out ‘mixed signals’ as saying ‘Hello girls, I’m the Doctor! Get your coat.’ 🙂
But yes, it’s a shift in writing. The Doctor in the RTD era, as I’ve said before, is ‘unsuitable boyfriend’. Seemingly, any heterosexual girl in her twenties will fall for the Doctor. It’s just a given. Perhaps it’s some kind of Time Lord aftershave? Which, fortunately, stops working when women hit their thirties. 🙂
But both Amy and Clara find the Doctor attractive – but not irresistible. In fact, they find it rather funny that he clearly assumes he is irresistible. 🙂
31 July 2013 at 17:51 #14675Because, HTPBDET, we girls can realise when we’re simply rebound material for a guy.
Indeed. Modern Clara is scripted as recognising that one very fast – and going: ‘oh, no, you don’t play that one. You take ME along, not the ghost of your ex.’
But Modern Clara’s almost a riposte to the way Martha was taken on board. She recognised that she was ‘rebound’ in one episode, instead of taking several episodes to wake up to it. Instead of the Doctor being the one to whisk her off for a long term break from her current responsibilities, Clara’s the one who establishes that HE visits HER on Wednesdays. And she’ll travel with him then. Or not.
🙂
-
AuthorPosts
