Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
19 July 2013 at 14:55 #14099
So I suspect he’d now try to avoid Skaro; the point that he doesn’t mention it’s going to be destroyed by him or make any comment whatsoever that implies it will be destroyed is the continuity change. He seems completely unaware that he’s destroyed the place.
I would really like to understand why you think this is the case.
Why would he bring up the fact that he is one day going to destroy Skaro?
I can’t understand why his saying nothing necessitates a continuity change?
19 July 2013 at 10:59 #14071Bless you.
Still very much confined to quarters, but more mobile and more leeway. A lot of time to contemplate.
My nephews are on holiday, so things are a little quieter than I would like them! 🙂
May have to have some further surgery tomorrow which should just be a simple thing, or so they say. But I am hoping the worst is over.
Still…all the monitoring of my being seems to point inexorably to the conclusion that I am resting better when engaged on this Forum. Maybe you should ask for NHS accreditation?
19 July 2013 at 10:37 #1406919 July 2013 at 10:29 #1406819 July 2013 at 10:19 #14067When Clara is in the Doctor’s timestream watching his various regenerations run by, he tells her “Those are my ghosts, my past.” Since she doesn’t see any future faces – and, it seems, neither does he (or, if he does, he’s not saying) – we can assume that there’s some sort of block in effect preventing looking into the Doctor’s future. Since the timestream is in the Doctor’s tomb and, hence a part of his own future, it would appear that his living presence is playing some role, blocking out anything beyond what is “current” for him.
That is one way of looking at it.
Here’s another.
The Great Intelligence knows about the Doctor’s future relative to Smith’s Doctor. He describes the events which led to” the old man” being finished off. He also lists names the Doctor will be known by “before the end”.
So, it is more likely than not that the Great Intelligence would seek to eradicate future and past events in the Doctor’s timeline. Vastra says the Great Intelligence is attacking the Doctor’s “entire” timestream. The Great Intelligence says it will “rewrite his every living moment”. That means his future as well as his past.
We never actually see Clara do a single thing to prevent the malevolent intervention of the Great Intelligence. Not a single thing. Does not mean she didn’t.
And obviously she did because Jenny and Strax revived and the lost stars returned to the sky.
So, we simply don’t see everything she does or sees in the tunnel.
Equally, there is a difference between what each of the “million” Claras who have been “born” in various spots in time and space remember.
Our Clara, did not remember Asylum Clara or Snowmen Clara until she was within the range of the tunnel. Inside the tunnel, who knows what she has remembered? But – the Clara inside the tunnel is still the one who went inside the tunnel – so she is the splintered creation of herself. And it makes sense that she remembers the Doctor’s past up to the point where she met him, where he is in his own timestream.
Perhaps the corrections Clara carries out occur chronologically in the Doctor’s past, so that she restores everything before the moment Smith’s Doctor enters the tunnel, but his arrival stops her continuing forward? That makes sense to me, because the Great Intelligence can only alter Smith”s future in alternative possibilities: until he lives it, it does not become his reality, just a future possibility ( in the same way Earth’s destruction is just a possibility in Pyramids of Mars ).
And, if it does not happen that way, Clara will be with us to the end, popping up in new guises with no memory of her past or the Doctor, coming to upset the Great Intelligence’s plans.
So, with respect, I think it is quite clear that both Clara and the Doctor must have access to his future in the tunnel, because part of the tunnel is the distance between Smith’s Doctor and the final incarnation to have two hearts beating.
Whether they access that future is another matter entirely. And we will not know until the Anniversary Special, if then.
Yes, time can be rewritten. Sure. The great Moffat cop-out. I am afraid I am rather tired of that mantra but I greatly fear that Moffat’s ego is so great he actually intends to re-write the Doctor’s history. I sincerely hope my fears are misplaced.
The continuity changes are generally subtle (except for Skaro), but they’re consistently there throughout both Asylum and the second half of Series 7. And while most of them could be explained away individually, the cumulative effect is difficult to explain without saying ‘the Doctor’s continuity has changed’.
Yes, he could have visited Skaro at a point before he destroyed it. Yes, there might have been another battle of Exillon. Yes, the missing wonder of the universe could have been destroyed in an off-screen event. Yes, he could have forgotten how to pronounce ‘Metebelis’.
But all of them?
If we start deciding things based on the number of inexplicable ( to some ) continuity errors, we may as well give up.
You may well be right about this, but my heart will be heavy if you are.
On the other hand….the events in Asylum could easily have occurred before the Seventh Doctor blew up Skaro.
As to Exxilon, nothing is surer than that the Daleks would have sent a ship to investigate what happened. Perhaps there was a “bubbling lump of hate” still bubbling? Perhaps there was a mother ship to where the Dalek spaceship was headed when it blew up? Perhaps the Dalek who killed himself for failure was also a failure at killing himself. There are a myriad number of ways there could be Dalek survivors on Exxilon.
Many things in Doctor Who happen off screen. Vastra got her message to Clara offscreen. River learns about Spoilers offscreen.
Smith’s pronunciation of Metebelis was, almost certainly, deliberate – to rile people like me. Or to make people think there was something going on – another Moffat building-block: the false clue. But, looked at calmly, regeneration can easily have the effect that words are pronounced differently from incarnation to incarnation.
So….I don’t see any errors or any cumulative effect here. It is as it ever was…continuity gives way to what the moment in the story requires. And we cope.
Until it is expressly stated that you are right, I am going to rumble along in my bubble – hoping that the smiling resolution of continuity errors permits past, present and future enjoyment.
Don’t feel you are alone!
But equally I don’t think you need to worry too much about that one line – I do not think it needs to mean anything in particular, as, hopefully, I have explained above.
As to this:
Moffat’s stories are open compositions, filled with clues and false leads, more puzzles really.
I agree completely. And with one slight refinement think it sums up his era:
Moffat’s stories are open compositions, familiar tropes and themes, filled with clues and false leads, more puzzles really, resonant with magic and thrills.
That last bit was especially for you @Shazzbot…
18 July 2013 at 19:48 #14022@LastOfTheTimelord
Hmmm…I would not hold my breath. 🙂
I don’t think the Doctor really wanted to be ginger – and, of course, if he really wanted to be, he would be: see Romana in Destiny of the Daleks.
I have no issues with a ginger haired person being cast, whether they be male or female. Just so long as they can act and be a spectacular Doctor!
18 July 2013 at 19:15 #14020So, when the GI jumped into the Doctor’s timestream, it created a universe where all of the Doctor’s victories turned to defeats. Then, Clara’s jump into the timestream created a 3rd universe where everything was put right (although possibly not exactly the same as before).
I am not sure about this.
Clara has already been in the Doctor’s existing timeline before she steps into the tunnel: Asylum and Snowmen show us that. So her role as Impossible Girl exists in the Doctor’s past before he gets to Trenzalore with her.
Why is there any reason to think that the Doctor is not still in his original timeline, which we have followed since Unearthy Child?
Surely that Universe, the third in your postulation, is actually the one in which Clara and the Doctor have always been? Clara’s entry now stops the GI activity and her corrections are the ones which propel the Doctor along the lives he has already led.
My old brain can’t get around any other way of looking at it.
We know that Clara aided Hartnell decide on which TARDIS to take (which, of course, is slightly at odds, perhaps, with what Idris said in Doctor’s Wife, but heigh-ho) so we know that she was there at the start of the Doctor’s travels and we also know that she has been there all along the way.
So I see nothing to suggest that anything has happened to alter the Doctor’s past as we have seen it- if Clara had not jumped in and created herself as the Impossible Girl, then, sure, the timelines would have altered. But, as she did, I cannot see how anything has changed.
The Impossible thing about Clara is that she exists in order to make sure she exists – no?
I’d say it’s more like The Doctor Who and Tardis Show. They seem to me to be more collaborators/partners than master and puppet or leader and companion.
I think one thing we can be certain of is that the TARDIS and the Doctor are linked – that was clearly stated in Power of the Daleks. They are part of each other.
Its a unique relationship, sure, but in no way is the Doctor not the leading party: the TARDIS is full of power and capable of great things, but I do not see her as the Doctor’s equal or controller or manipulator or destiny. That Pertwee survived and flourished when the TARDIS was all but disabled by the Time Lords points to that reality.
The TARDIS is amazing – I have said many times that the TARDIS is the greatest creation in the Doctor Who universe and I repeat that. Without the TARDIS, Doctor Who would have been dead long ago.
I adore the TARDIS and enjoy it when little insights about her abilities are discovered.
But I see no sense of collaboration anywhere, except in the way that, say, a person and their faithful horse collaborate on the process of travelling.
The Doctor loves the TARDIS, depends upon the TARDIS and sometimes treats it like a fellow traveller, all of which is fantastic.
But he is the pilot…at least most of the time.
The TARDIS rarely takes independent action – I can only think of two occasions: Planet of the Spiders and Name of the Doctor. (I am not counting “sulks” which are not unusual for a sentient being) And I can think of many times where, if the TARDIS was capable of independent action, it would have taken it – one example is when Jo pressed the dematerialisation switch and caused TimeRam in Time Monster.
The other question I come back to if GI, Clara and Doctor 11 enter his time stream (which by definition runs from birth to death) the Doctor 11 and Clara must become aware of all 13 Doctors and his entire future history. Nothing less than that makes sense to me. So even if the Hurt Doctor isn’t the Doctor by choice of name (choice of action/personal responsibility of course) he is biologically, so his memories must be in the timeline. In fact all 13 Doctor’s memories must be present so Clara MUST have seen all 13 (unless he dies before the biological end). Surely the GI will not have started his attack from just 11 downwards only.
Yes, that is how it seems to me too.
Which is why I will be interested to see whether the exit from the tunnel explains all or just works on the basis that the detail does not matter. Alas, for me, all too often SM does not deal with the detail but with the broad brushstrokes – which are full of invention, colour, excitement and movement.
Time will tell.
🙂
13 July 2013 at 22:41 #13813I think Mrs PhaseShift is right on the money.
Still, it was good enough for StarWars to ripoff Holst, why not Doctor Who?
13 July 2013 at 22:19 #1380713 July 2013 at 22:18 #13806Yes, totally agree: Tennant and Kingston do have that vocal skill.
It’s a wonderful gift or a finely tuned talent- or both.
13 July 2013 at 22:12 #1380313 July 2013 at 18:08 #13780DOCTOR: The Peking Homunculus was a toy, a plaything for the Commissioner’s children. It contained a series of magnetic fields operating on a printed circuit and a small computer. It had one organic component. The cerebral cortex of a pig. Anyway, something went wrong. It almost caused World War Six.
LITEFOOT: What?
DOCTOR: Yes, somehow the pig part took over. So Weng-Chiang has brought the Peking Homunculus back through time. He could have done. It disappeared completely. It was never found.
LITEFOOT: I say, I may have had a bang on the head but this is a dashed queer story. Time travel?
DOCTOR: Unsuccessful time travel, Professor. Findicker’s discovery of the double nexus particle sent human science up a technological cul-de-sac.
LITEFOOT: Are you following this?
LEELA: Not a word.There is, again, much to admire and enjoy here. This is a close second for my favourite episode.
It has many twists and turns, and is laced with genuinely funny material which comes directly from the care taken to establish who the key players are.
It’s a neat trick to find Chang in the Opium den, alive after all, his leg lost to the Giant Rats and his earthly time numbered. The insanity and murderous nature of Weng-Chang is emphasised and the time spent with the detained Jago and Litefoot sets us up to believe the next crisis will be with them, but that turns out to be clever mis-direction again.
This particular Chinese puzzle is full of gems: the scene where Leela suspects the Doctor is a coward is magic; so is the scene where Litefoot persuades Jago to attempt escape by the dumb waiter.
Who is Weng-Chiang? Coming so close after Deadly Assassin ( another Robert Holmes story ) and given that he has a deformed body that is degenerating, surely he is the Master? Somehow trapped without his TARDIS?
Surely?
Only a week to wait…
13 July 2013 at 15:34 #13760I do love the audio recordings – it is astonishing how vivid it all seems. I am glad that you get a lot of Troughton’s voice virtuosity – combined with his remarkable eyes, it was really something. And he is at the top of his game in Web of Fear.
It is interesting to listen to Nick Courtney with Hartnell and then with Troughton. He seems to really come alive with Troughton – and once alive, never flags.
Yes, modern actors, alas, are not taught to use their voices properly. It’s a great pity.
13 July 2013 at 10:58 #13749Totally agree. Nicholas Courtney was central to the survival of Doctor Who in the Seventies and that is often overlooked.
Oh how I wish Web of Fear was still with us – he started as he continued…magnificently.
The thrill I got when he came back in Invasion was immeasurable.
And he helped ease the pain of the loss of Troughton.
I cried copiously when he passed – he and Sarah-Jane Smith in the same year.
Those first six months of 2011 were truly a bad time.
12 July 2013 at 02:02 #1366211 July 2013 at 16:07 #13634I think if you lived through the Ian and Barbara years, at the time, you would find it hard to imagine them not being together after their travels.
It’s like working on a piece of theatre with people: sometimes you form short, highly charged bonds; other times, you make friendships for life; occasionally, you fall in love with a co-star and it lasts well beyond the final curtain.
I don’t think there is a hard and fast rule about love though…
🙂
11 July 2013 at 16:02 #13633The failing in BG Who was that they didn’t show that any of the Companions had grown/changed as individuals and to sign post that their departure day was arriving. If they had added this relatively small change then the Companion leaving would no longer be quite the shock it was. BG was stupid and thoughtless in the how, but the why’s were more often than not quite reasonable in hindsight.
I guess once Susan left, the die was cast for me. There was no permanency in the TARDIS crew – travellers would come and go.
At the time, I felt that was just part of the thrill – never knowing who would stay, who would go or when.
Nowadays, unfortunately, we know well in advance when companions will come and when they will go – so the element of surprise is lost. Which is why I think, at least in part, AG makes the stories about the companions more than BG ever did.
How much more spectacularly affecting would Rose’s original departure had been had we no idea that Billie Piper was moving on?
But the issue for me with the companions in BG was that ocassionally, the departures were not consistent with the character. The abruptness of them did not matter so much if there was a reason.
So, while incredibly abrupt, Susan’s departure was understandable. While devastating and opportunistic, Barbara and Ian did the thing most consistent for their characters – they used the Dalek time machine as their ownly realistic prospect of going home. Steven stayed to rule the race he had helped protect and liberate. Katarina and Susan Kingdom and Bret Vyon all died.
But Vicki and Dodo, whatever you thought of them, both had raw deals. Vicki staying to marry was ridiculous and completely out of character; Dodo was simply dropped.
Ben and Polly did not have a proper farewell – they were just sort of thrown aside. But each of Victoria, Jamie and Zoe had ends to their journeys which worked.
Liz Shaw was all but erased from memory, exiled to Cambridge. Jo went off to marry and follow a cause, which was consistent with her impulsive nature, even if her beau was a drip.
Sarah-Jane started as she finished – essentially a loner. And, as I have said before, the Doctor’s treatment of her was rough but had a purpose: he wanted her safe in case the Time lords sought to wipe her memories of him.
Harry jumped ship when he could – as close to the Ian and Barbara mould as you can find.
Laughably, Leela married Andred: she should have been killed saving the Doctor’s life. Romana decided she wanted to be her own woman and saw E-space as an appropriate opportunity and I think that was okay.
Adric was killed. Unfortunately, Tegan wasn’t – and while her sudden departure is explained I do not think it is particularly consistent with her character as we had seen her to that point. Although fielding makes that final scene work very well.
Nyssa’s departure made sense, albeit unexpectedly. She wanted a home and a purpose.
Turlough returned home. Peri was appalling enough to want to marry Ycranos, but still her departure was hard to fathom, but as the story was just part of a disjointed flashback sequence it was hard to judge.
Mel left appropriately, albeit three stories too late…Ace never left.
And I don’t count the robots here because, well, they are robots.
So, for me, there are 8 instances of departures BG which were both abrupt and inconsistent – which is not too bad over 26 seasons.
Ben/Polly. Absolutely agree, there was no love relationship on screen. I don’t think any modern writer would keep that as is though, which is why [like Barbara and Ian] the relationship would be more in your face today. It would be shown to develop during their time travelling with the Doctor.
Why does Doctor Who have to be relationship driven? I can understand why RTD re-booted it as he did but, now, going forward – why can’t it return to just being about damn fine stories of adventure and mystery and intrigue?
Is it now de rigeur for there to be some sort of sexual tension? And, if so, isn’t that a good enough reason not to provide it?
11 July 2013 at 14:27 #13625You are not alone re Simm – as I said above I did not like where RTD took the Master but I liked how Simm played the character as envisaged by RTD. Not many people could have made that piece of wrong-thinking as good as Simm did.
11 July 2013 at 14:19 #13624The view we get of Amy and Rory is pretty much the view the Doctor gets – a series of short stories, the exciting bits, with huge chunks of their life happening when he’s not around.
Not sure that is right, is it? There are numerous references on screen to adventures that the Doctor has had with Amy and/or Amy and Rory which we do not see or see only a snatch of. The Zygons in the Savoy is one incident that springs to mind.
Part of my issue with the SM era is that so much happens off-screen – it is not really possible to understand the nature of the relationships between the characters. Rather than seeing the ups and downs, the audience is told where the friendship/relationship is.
This is one of the key differences between RTD and SM it seems to me.
We don’t have the same kind of character development with Amy and Rory that we saw with Rose, Martha and Donna – because we’re not seeing them over a continuous period.
Quite
Moffat has chosen to tell his Who story as a connected series of short stories.
Or even a disconnected series of short stories…
For example, we jump straight from Amy not being sure she wants to say Rory’s her boyfriend to her getting married to him tomorrow.
A good example of where SM tells us to believe an emotional attitude we see no sign off…
Snapshots. Short stories. Sometimes things are mentioned, sometimes they aren’t. Losing the baby was a big thing – but in real life you don’t announce every single day that you’re really torn up about your missing child. So in some short stories it isn’t mentioned.
Oh, I don’t know about that…
Sure, you could have had a story with Amy and Rory without the Doctor where the loss was not mentioned – but is it really believable/truthful to have a story with him where they do not mention it or press him about what he has found out? He is the reason the baby is gone after all…I would hazard a guess that the parents of Madeline McCann talk about her loss every day, because there is no closure for them. And Amy and Rory have no closure about Melody until Wedding of River Song occurs and even then…
I find your analysis of RTD and SM’s styles fascinating. And I entirely see why you feel that way.
But, for me, SM is perfectly capable of writing novels (Press Gang and Coupling, I think, prove that) – he just uses a particular style AG Doctor Who to separate the chapters.
For me, much more than RTD, SM writes novels. But there are entire chapters missing – in the novels RTD wrote, the chapters were all there.
If you think about it
“Travelling in the TARDIS is something so spectacular that Companions need a really good reason to leave”
is just a writers conceit, even if its one we choose to believe and share. No sane Human Being I’ve met really wants to “suffer” multiple near death experiences, even if there are interludes (which we don’t see on screen too often) which are the complete opposite.I agree completely with this.
That quote is from SM unless I am mistaken ( which I may well be) and if it is it says a lot about his view of the AG Doctor Who world.
Depending on who you are, I would have thought it much more likely that a companion would, after the initial couple of adventures, more need a reason to keep travelling than to stay home. I always thought Harry’s reaction was genuine – he went along for the ride, enjoyed it but stayed on home soil first chance he got. Sarah-Jane was a journalist at heart – so her lust for adventure was understandable, as was Leela’s and Romana’s given their identities. Many other BG companions had no choice but to travel – and Jo was there for three years but did not do that much travelling.
In AG, Rose fell in love, Martha wanted to fall in love and Donna was running away from her own life – so each had a reason to keep on travelling – and a reason to stop.
We also didn’t get any relationship dynamics in BG Who (I guess most of us now consider Ian/Barbara and Ben/Polly were in relationships during their travels ?). I would say that reflected the wider era attitudes given it was a family tea time show.
I don’t think I ever really thought Ian and Barbara were lovers while travelling, but I did think they had fallen in love and that, post The Chase, they would marry and spend their lives together.
Ben and Polly definitely were not lovers, although Ben wanted Polly to be his “duchess”. But, again, post- Faceless Ones, there was the sense that their travels would bind them and they would be together for life.
The one love I am confident about is Jamie’s love for Victoria. He adored her.
The surprise in most cases, was that the departure came out of the blue, as they didn’t bother to sign post the Companion character development which “caused” their departure to happen. If they had done that, would we really be making this to be such a big difference BG/AG as we do?
I don’t understand? Rose was wrenched into another dimension; Martha had been alone, away from the Doctor for a year, and had moved on and was in a relationship; Donna’s memory was wiped and staying with the Doctor could kill her; Amy and Rory were thrown back in time to a point inaccessible by the Doctor.
In each case, the companion’s finale was the story. In BG, that was not ever the case, except, arguably at least, perhaps for Adric. Every other companion left because of an opportunity or decision that was unplanned or opportunistic.
In AG, the adventures are the particular companions’ adventures with the Doctor and their consequences; in BG, the adventures were the Doctor’s adventures with whoever. Isn’t that the true – and key – difference?
On a more general point, we accept that travelling with the Doctor changes Companions out look on life and the way that they approach it.. Whilst the effect can be detrimental (eg Sarah Jane’s unresolved departure from the Doctor and Rose too actually), but it can also be beneficial. I’d say the Donna we see at the start of the Adipose story has changed dramatically from the Donna in the runaway bride [of course RTD just has to show us the price she pays for this].
Hmmm….From Donna’s point of view, she has not suffered at all. Only the Doctor, really, and perhaps Wilf too, suffers over her fate. Our perception is of a devastating event – but from Donna’s point of view, it is not.
And I am not sure I see Sarah-Jane’s exit in Hand of Fear as detrimental to her. Her experience was of the sudden inexplicable loss of a close friend – she seemed unfazed in Five Doctors. In School Reunion, she is clearly still very successful in her career but when her professional path crosses with the Doctor’s she takes the chance to confront him about what happened.
General thoughts on AG companions in particular – most of them meet the Dr when they need to. Yes, the experience of travelling with him changes them, but usually for the better. They find qualities in themselves that they didn’t know they had (applies to BG companions as well). It’s like getting years of life experience packed into a very short time.
Yes, an excellent point and certainly true up to the SM era. Amy and Rory’s experience of the Doctor as an active presence in their lives is spread over a much longer period and, because of that, assumes an importance that association with the Doctor did not bring for any of the earlier companions.This, too, seems to me a fundamental point of distinction in the SM era. The Eleventh Doctor is willing to dip in and out of the lives of his companions over a much greater period of time than any earlier Doctor – actually, it’s one of the reasons this incarnation troubles me. He seems not to care about the fact that his disruptions stop Amy and Rory from having their lives.
@janetteb
Ah…the glories of a Barossa Valley Shiraz…10 July 2013 at 18:04 #13559One thing is timeless: the people at the top of creative ladders at the BBC hate programmes which they did not commission.
I don’t think SM has that many supporters in the new administrative regime at the BBC – Danny Cohen wants to make the BBC central output his own.
The only thing which causes drama to be recommissioned at the BBC is ratings. SM got the gig after RTD because the ratings were solid and the then Controller believed in SM.
Much has changed since then.
The BBC has officially confirmed Series 8 of AG Doctor Who. I imagine no actor would take the role without a contract for a few years – for it to be cancelled after his/her first year would be undesirable…unless, say, you were an actor in your twilight years, happy to do a year and then walk away…
10 July 2013 at 17:44 #13555Well, Ms Adler did not have to be presented that way – but she was.
Hermione Norris would make a chilling mistress of evil if she was cast as one – and not necessarily sexual. Gina McKee could too. And Emma Fielding.
All it takes is for white men to be willing to accept a world where women can be effective without relying upon sex.
Not sure, though, that I will live that long.
10 July 2013 at 17:39 #13554Thanks – I have actually contacted the BMM about a few things they may want. Still waiting to hear back.
Do you know and recommend whoviannet.com? I have never heard of them?
I don’t know – I feel awkward enough about writing about those things here where it feels safe. What did you think might be of interest to them?
Curious, too, that they indicate that contributors will be able to buy the book containing their own contribution…
Honestly, I think if anything I wrote was of interest for publication somewhere, I would rather it be to the benefit of this site rather than anything else.
It is quite surprising, to me anyway, that the BBC has not done a documentary or series about the effect of the programme on people’s lives. But then, their reaction to the 50th year has been so remarkably dumb as to be breath-taking.
10 July 2013 at 17:25 #13552Oh, I really liked the Rani. She is a great role-model for feminine evil.
I always really liked Vivien Fey from Stones of Blood and if camp overplaying is your thing, Adrastra from Creature From The Pit is hard to beat.
I would love the Master to become a woman – a classy, vicious murderous enemy. Maybe you could aspire to that? 🙂
I may have mis-read the post above. But I thought the lost paragraph was about some musings of mine about why there was no “S”.
Perhaps my mind is even more befuddled than I thought…
10 July 2013 at 17:07 #13550Ah….you are always gentle!
But I thought you might bite… 🙂
I have no memory of the post @tardisblue mentions, but thought you might…
10 July 2013 at 16:29 #13546Thank goodness for you!
Here was I musing about rambling on about “To S or not to S” (mainly in the forlorn hope that @Shazzbot would cease prodding me!) and you mention that I appear to have already done it…
Lordy….I must indeed have been out of it…
🙂
9 July 2013 at 14:01 #13442Shall we wait for Craig? I could repost mine, but they would not be in order?
Or could you re-order them when done?
I’ll come back to you in defence of Krotons…
🙂
9 July 2013 at 13:12 #134379 July 2013 at 12:51 #134359 July 2013 at 12:49 #13434The loss of a child and enduring a miscarriage are both matters with which, unhappily, I am personally familiar, although obviously not from the role of the mother.
But I did closely observe and care for McLeela during both times. And I watched my parents deal with their own issues and their own marriage.
Its the timing of the breakdown of their relationship that I find most surprising about the segments in Asylum. That and the fact that Amy takes out her issues on Rory rather than the Doctor.
But I have serious issues with the way the whole “loss of Melody” arc was dealt with and, like @nick, did not find the Angels Take Manhattan resolution of Pond Time satisfying on any level. Well, except that Amy was finally gone.
We will now return you to your normal discussion of Weng Chiang by asking whether Pre Gap Doctors had much more experience of normal human life. Discuss
I think they had plenty of experience of human life but they had almost no contact with the dynamic of specific personal relationships. But when they did, they usually acted as a healer or a catalyst for healing – I guess Victoria provides the best example: the Doctor takes her with him because she has no one and needs time to heal after the Daleks’ destruction of her father and then he leaves her with the Harris family because she needs a family and they need a daughter.
But the whole point of BG Doctor Who was that the companions did not lead normal lives when they traveled with the Doctor: they were always out of their place and time (with the odd hiccup for the Pertwee exile years).
As we know, AG Doctor Who deals with companions in a very different way. It will be interesting to see what now happens with Clara…
9 July 2013 at 11:32 #13424I did not mean to suggest that those AG excerpts were padding – I was just trying to see what you thought about them viv-a-vis the Talons stuff.
To me the terms “padding” and “filler” are inherently derogatory, at least in a way. And while I do not mean you, I think a lot of people use them without really knowing what they are discussing.
I totally agree with you about horizontal and vertical writing – and vertical writing always is the most satisfying in Television terms. Holmes was a master of it, but there were others too: David Whittaker, Brian Hayles, Chris Boucher – even Uncle Terrence clearly gets it.
For me, the Mrs Samuelson discussions have a clear purpose – they show that Jago is on the ropes and that he is not paying money where it is needed – which means that there is no security at the theatre and much more chance for Weng-Chiang to come and go. And the speech sets up the kind of relationship Jago has with Casey and reveals one of the many masks (spot on @scaryb) that he wears. That simple exchange tells us volumes about Jago and his assumed air of bombastic indifference and control – and that lets what happens later to Jago and Litefoot make a definite kind of sense.
So, while, strictly speaking they are not necessary for the tale being told, they have a real purpose – one that works and helps make the story the classic it is.
Perhaps an alternative definition of padding would be writing that sponges off the main narrative but in a way that ultimately harbours resentment in the viewer.
I like that definition and I think I agree with it entirely.
A vertical story takes as long as it takes. Sometimes, especially in Pertwee’s time, the stories were really three episode stories or two episode stories, but budgets made them into four; or they were four or five episode stories made into six.
And another time, it would be good to chew over War Games, a story with ten episodes about which I harbour no resentment of any scene (although I resent the ending entirely!!) I also found Dalek Masterplan quite remarkable – much much better than The Chase, for instance, which was half its length.
And I think it is largely for that reason that I think the second excerpt from Asylum constitutes padding in my mind – or perhaps something worse: contrary narrative.
After The Girl Who Waited why would there be a divorce? Why would Amy act so appallingly towards Rory? I never thought it was explained satisfactorily, or in a way that was coherent with what had gone before, and I thought it got entirely in the way of the drama of the actual story being told.
I think this is what @nick is saying – but also wonder if this is the right place to have this discussion. I don’t want to incur @bluesqueakpip‘s rage…
🙂
On a slightly different topic, I sometimes wish in AG Doctor Who that they would tell the story for as long as it takes – this might mean 1 and 1/2 episodes, so a story starts, has its 45 minutes and then finishes twenty minutes into the next episode, when the following story could begin. That simple formula could have made a big difference in, say, Bells of St John and Rings of Akhaten. Bells could have been told in shorter time than it was and the extra time would have assisted Rings.
9 July 2013 at 11:32 #13460I did not mean to suggest that those AG excerpts were padding – I was just trying to see what you thought about them viv-a-vis the Talons stuff.
To me the terms “padding” and “filler” are inherently derogatory, at least in a way. And while I do not mean you, I think a lot of people use them without really knowing what they are discussing.
I totally agree with you about horizontal and vertical writing – and vertical writing always is the most satisfying in Television terms. Holmes was a master of it, but there were others too: David Whittaker, Brian Hayles, Chris Boucher – even Uncle Terrence clearly gets it.
For me, the Mrs Samuelson discussions have a clear purpose – they show that Jago is on the ropes and that he is not paying money where it is needed – which means that there is no security at the theatre and much more chance for Weng-Chiang to come and go. And the speech sets up the kind of relationship Jago has with Casey and reveals one of the many masks (spot on @scaryb) that he wears. That simple exchange tells us volumes about Jago and his assumed air of bombastic indifference and control – and that lets what happens later to Jago and Litefoot make a definite kind of sense.
So, while, strictly speaking they are not necessary for the tale being told, they have a real purpose – one that works and helps make the story the classic it is.
Perhaps an alternative definition of padding would be writing that sponges off the main narrative but in a way that ultimately harbours resentment in the viewer.
I like that definition and I think I agree with it entirely.
A vertical story takes as long as it takes. Sometimes, especially in Pertwee’s time, the stories were really three episode stories or two episode stories, but budgets made them into four; or they were four or five episode stories made into six.
And another time, it would be good to chew over War Games, a story with ten episodes about which I harbour no resentment of any scene (although I resent the ending entirely!!) I also found Dalek Masterplan quite remarkable – much much better than The Chase, for instance, which was half its length.
And I think it is largely for that reason that I think the second excerpt from Asylum constitutes padding in my mind – or perhaps something worse: contrary narrative.
After The Girl Who Waited why would there be a divorce? Why would Amy act so appallingly towards Rory? I never thought it was explained satisfactorily, or in a way that was coherent with what had gone before, and I thought it got entirely in the way of the drama of the actual story being told.
I think this is what @nick is saying – but also wonder if this is the right place to have this discussion. I don’t want to incur @bluesqueakpip‘s rage…
🙂
On a slightly different topic, I sometimes wish in AG Doctor Who that they would tell the story for as long as it takes – this might mean 1 and 1/2 episodes, so a story starts, has its 45 minutes and then finishes twenty minutes into the next episode, when the following story could begin. That simple formula could have made a big difference in, say, Bells of St John and Rings of Akhaten. Bells could have been told in shorter time than it was and the extra time would have assisted Rings.
9 July 2013 at 00:20 #134049 July 2013 at 00:17 #13403Have to disagree with @htpbdet re. episode three. It was very much padding. Quality padding that brought much richness and texture to the secondary characters — which helps greatly in feeling trepidation for Litefoot and pathos for Casey in this episode, but padding nonetheless. But narratively speaking absolutely sod-all of any importance happens whatsoever. The only thing that really advances is that we learn what Weng-Chiang wanted the girls for and in terms of sheer story that could have been dealt with in a single scene. (Which is what Nu-Who would almost certainly have done.)
Okay, fair enough. I guess it depends on what you describe padding as?
It seems on your definition, and I may have misunderstood, that if it does not really advance the action, its padding.
On that basis, then, episode three is entirely padding because this exchange occurs in episode two:
WENG: I am dying, Chang. You must bring another linnet to my cage.
CHANG: But only yesterday…
WENG: The disease grows worse. Each distillation lasts less than the time before.
CHANG: And with every girl reported missing, panic increases. I fear one of them will be traced here.
Distillation makes it pretty clear what is happening to the girls I think?I guess I have a narrower definition of what constitutes padding. There is a lot of corridor running in Seeds of Death, for instance, which is padding; the multi-vehicle chase of Lupton in Planet of the Spiders; quite a lot of Android Invasion and Time Flight…too name just a few. These are the examples I think of as padding, together with, say, the manufactured quark cliff-hangers in Dominators.
For me, padding is material which does not add anything to the narrative.
Perhaps the greatest example of padding in Doctor Who is episode one of The Mind Robber – nothing that happens there really needs to happen for the adventure in the Land of Fiction to begin. And yet…I don’t think anyone would characterize that episode as padding in the sense that “we would have a better story without it” or am I wrong about that?
To me, that initial episode sets up what is to come. It is an integral part of what makes Mind Robber unique and disturbing and exciting.
In the same way, it seems to me anyway, the detailed character work that is the backbone of episode three of Talons of Weng-Chiang sets up what follows and builds on what has happened, heightening the drama, upping the suspense and adding texture and depth to the proceedings, while allowing Leela, in particular, and the Doctor to take their central roles.
I don’t think Talons of Weng-Chiang would be nearly as enjoyable or nearly as highly-regarded if it did not have all of the material in episode three.
I am curious: do you think there is padding in AG Doctor Who?
For instance, is this padding?
DARLA: First, there were the Daleks. And then, there was a man who fought them. And then, in time, he died. There are a few, of course, who believe this man somehow survived, and that one day he will return. For both our sakes, dearest Hannah, we must hope these stories are true.
DOCTOR: I got your message. Not many people can do that. Send me messages.
DARLA: I have a daughter, Hannah. She’s in a Dalek prison camp. They say you can help.
DOCTOR: Do they? I wish they’d stop. I love your choice of meeting place.
DARLA: They said I’d have to intrigue you.
DOCTOR: Skaro. The original planet of the Daleks. Look at the state of it. Who told you about me?
DARLA: Does it matter?
DOCTOR: Maybe not, but you’re very well informed. If Hannah’s in a Dalek prison camp, tell me, why aren’t you?
DARLA: I escaped.
DOCTOR: No. Nobody escapes the Dalek camps. You’re very cold.
DARLA: What’s wrong?
DOCTOR: It’s a trap.
DARLA: What is?
DOCTOR: You are, and you don’t even know it.
Or this?AMY: I’ll just be a minute.
PA: Your husband is here.
AMY: Hmm. I don’t have a husband.
PA: Oh, well, apparently you still do.
RORY: You have to sign these.
AMY: And then we’re not married?
RORY: Just like magic.
AMY: Can’t chat. Working.
RORY: Really? Thought you were just pouting at a camera.
AMY: Rory?
CASSANDRA: Sorry, love. Was I interrupting?
AMY: No.
CASSANDRA: Gosh, look at you. You’ve gone so pale. Come on, take a seat. We’ll soon sort that out.I ask only because I would like to understand what the consensus is about what “padding” is. I think I might not have it right in my mind.
🙂
9 July 2013 at 00:17 #13455Have to disagree with @htpbdet re. episode three. It was very much padding. Quality padding that brought much richness and texture to the secondary characters — which helps greatly in feeling trepidation for Litefoot and pathos for Casey in this episode, but padding nonetheless. But narratively speaking absolutely sod-all of any importance happens whatsoever. The only thing that really advances is that we learn what Weng-Chiang wanted the girls for and in terms of sheer story that could have been dealt with in a single scene. (Which is what Nu-Who would almost certainly have done.)
Okay, fair enough. I guess it depends on what you describe padding as?
It seems on your definition, and I may have misunderstood, that if it does not really advance the action, its padding.
On that basis, then, episode three is entirely padding because this exchange occurs in episode two:
WENG: I am dying, Chang. You must bring another linnet to my cage.
CHANG: But only yesterday…
WENG: The disease grows worse. Each distillation lasts less than the time before.
CHANG: And with every girl reported missing, panic increases. I fear one of them will be traced here.
Distillation makes it pretty clear what is happening to the girls I think?I guess I have a narrower definition of what constitutes padding. There is a lot of corridor running in Seeds of Death, for instance, which is padding; the multi-vehicle chase of Lupton in Planet of the Spiders; quite a lot of Android Invasion and Time Flight…too name just a few. These are the examples I think of as padding, together with, say, the manufactured quark cliff-hangers in Dominators.
For me, padding is material which does not add anything to the narrative.
Perhaps the greatest example of padding in Doctor Who is episode one of The Mind Robber – nothing that happens there really needs to happen for the adventure in the Land of Fiction to begin. And yet…I don’t think anyone would characterize that episode as padding in the sense that “we would have a better story without it” or am I wrong about that?
To me, that initial episode sets up what is to come. It is an integral part of what makes Mind Robber unique and disturbing and exciting.
In the same way, it seems to me anyway, the detailed character work that is the backbone of episode three of Talons of Weng-Chiang sets up what follows and builds on what has happened, heightening the drama, upping the suspense and adding texture and depth to the proceedings, while allowing Leela, in particular, and the Doctor to take their central roles.
I don’t think Talons of Weng-Chiang would be nearly as enjoyable or nearly as highly-regarded if it did not have all of the material in episode three.
I am curious: do you think there is padding in AG Doctor Who?
For instance, is this padding?
DARLA: First, there were the Daleks. And then, there was a man who fought them. And then, in time, he died. There are a few, of course, who believe this man somehow survived, and that one day he will return. For both our sakes, dearest Hannah, we must hope these stories are true.
DOCTOR: I got your message. Not many people can do that. Send me messages.
DARLA: I have a daughter, Hannah. She’s in a Dalek prison camp. They say you can help.
DOCTOR: Do they? I wish they’d stop. I love your choice of meeting place.
DARLA: They said I’d have to intrigue you.
DOCTOR: Skaro. The original planet of the Daleks. Look at the state of it. Who told you about me?
DARLA: Does it matter?
DOCTOR: Maybe not, but you’re very well informed. If Hannah’s in a Dalek prison camp, tell me, why aren’t you?
DARLA: I escaped.
DOCTOR: No. Nobody escapes the Dalek camps. You’re very cold.
DARLA: What’s wrong?
DOCTOR: It’s a trap.
DARLA: What is?
DOCTOR: You are, and you don’t even know it.
Or this?AMY: I’ll just be a minute.
PA: Your husband is here.
AMY: Hmm. I don’t have a husband.
PA: Oh, well, apparently you still do.
RORY: You have to sign these.
AMY: And then we’re not married?
RORY: Just like magic.
AMY: Can’t chat. Working.
RORY: Really? Thought you were just pouting at a camera.
AMY: Rory?
CASSANDRA: Sorry, love. Was I interrupting?
AMY: No.
CASSANDRA: Gosh, look at you. You’ve gone so pale. Come on, take a seat. We’ll soon sort that out.I ask only because I would like to understand what the consensus is about what “padding” is. I think I might not have it right in my mind.
🙂
8 July 2013 at 23:36 #13401DOCTOR: Leela? Leela, are you all right?
LEELA: Oh, thank you, Doctor. Yes, I’m all right, just bruised.
DOCTOR: You were lucky.
LEELA: I deserve death. I had the chance to kill our enemy, Doctor, and I failed.
DOCTOR: Which enemy?
LEELA: The yellow one calls him lord. He lives in a cave beneath the theatre. Come, I will show you.Episode four is, I think, my favourite of the six episodes. And it really belongs to Jago and Chang, two of the crispest and fully formed supporting characters Robert Holmes ever provided. Litefoot makes three, of course, but he is on the back-burner here while Robert Holmes distracts us with shenanigans at the theatre.
It does not seem to me a second is wasted here and no matter how many times I see this episode, it never fails to beguile and entertain. Once you have seen Chang’s magic show, it necessarily loses a lot of impact, but, even so, it does not drag for me.
Tom Baker is at his imperious aloof best; Louise Jameson is just wonderful as Leela; Jago sets up the effect the murder of Casey will have on us and his conversations about money explain why things are so lax at the theatre to permit the kind of toing and froing that Weng-Chiang needs to run amok; the humiliation of Chang is as good (or bad!) as cold-blooded murder – Weng-Chiang knows his servant well enough and although Chang might be too wily for him face-to-face, he counts on the deceit with Casey’s dead body being enough to ensure Chang will take his life by his own hand – thereby hopefully denying the Doctor a way into understanding Weng-Chiang’s world.
It seems clear too that the Doctor did see Chang dispense scorpion venom in episode one:
DOCTOR: No poison tonight. There are questions to answer.
And the ending…the surprise reveal that Mr Sin had secured the Time Cabinet for Weng-Chiang and the two of them celebrating their victory in the cab, while Mr Sin howls at the moon…well, I think it is one of the most evocative and clever cliff-hangers in BG Doctor Who.
I love this episode.
@jimthefish
Another fun episode. It doesn’t drag or feel like a chore as many Old-Who filler episodes do, but it is still filler. Chang’s death aside, you could have gone straight from Leela and the Doctor escaping the sewers to Weng-Chiang taking the Time Cabinet and nothing would have been lost in terms of narrative. And why did they go to the theatre anyway? To draw out their enemies? They had the Time Cabinet. Why didn’t the Doctor just wait at Litefoot’s for Weng-Chiang to show up as he was bound to? Well, they’ve still got a couple of episodes to fill out, that’s why…
Perhaps.I always thought they went to the theatre to bring pressure to bear on Chang. The Doctor knew why women were disappearing and he knew Chang was the key to stopping that. He went to the theatre expecting Chang to try to kill him and hoping to turn that to his advantage. He needed to know who Weng-Chiang was, because he knew he wasn’t a God.
If the Doctor had simply waited for Weng-Chiang to come back for the Cabinet, innocent lives might have been lost as Weng-Chiang got strong enough to make the assault. The Doctor could not have predicted the Trojan Horse laundry basket with Mr Sin. So he went to the theatre to try and force Chang’s hand, thinking Litefoot was safe because of the police protection. No?
But, more than that, wouldn’t the story have been so much less without these scenes?
8 July 2013 at 23:30 #13399You are very kind – and thanks.
Don’t be in awe – nothing special about me. But I am touched that my little story has been of interest.
Truly.
I was, frankly, scared when I started – because I am not sure I have ever articulated my relationship with the programme in such an open and idiosyncratically clinical way – but my recent medical issues suddenly made it important to me to try and articulate the journey – for my nephews and any possible grandchildren or great-nephews/nieces.
There were several points in recent months when I did not think I would see the 50th Anniversary Special, but this writing project has seriously helped me through the darkest times. And it has been something to read aloud the various instalments to my nephews while they looked at photos and postcards and other indicia of a life lived under the spell of the TARDIS.
And I am luckiest of all that there was this kind and special place where it was not considered especially freaky to tell this very personal story. I don’t know if I would have been able to take the risk of sharing the story with my nephews but for the kindness shown here.
Here, at least so it seems to me, we all share a common love. No one strives to be King and everyone happily sits at a very round table – full of strong personalities, shy personalities, funny personalities and clever minds all.
I feel like I have learnt a lot about the way Doctor Who works for younger people today and about how AG Doctor Who affected people in different ways from the way it affected me. And I have much more to learn.
As well, it is good to be challenged and made to rethink by people who feel passionately about the programme too – like @jimthefish , @scaryb, @juniperfish, @bluesqueakpip, @phaseshift, @blenkinsopthebrave, @nick, @chickenelly and @osakahatter – and to get to chat to people like you and @Shazzbot and many others who are part of a new wave of small-F fans.
And for all that, we have the great @craig to thank – and I, for one, cannot begin to repay him for the gift he has given.
So, welcome, fellow wanderer in the fourth dimension – it’s quite a ride here.
🙂
6 July 2013 at 15:59 #13260It may be my befuddled-by-painkillers mind, but you have lost me.
Why do you think the Master must know everything the Doctor has ever done?
Does the Master know what happened on Peladon? Does he know about any incursion by the Great Intelligence? Does he know about Marinus, Adric’s fate or Dragonfire?
Is there something I have missed that makes you think the Master knows everything the Doctor has ever done? Why is there a problem with the Master never having referred to Hurt or his actions? You have me intrigued.
My nephews have a theory: Hurt is the one who traps Omega in the Point of Singularity choosing to save himself rather than help Omega. He is disgraced and regenerates into a baby ( as River said she did once ) and that baby grows up to be Hartnell who rejects the society built on the trapping of Omega and the resultant power given to Gallifrey and runs away. I have pointed out that it doesn’t really fit with what Pertwee says about Omega in Three Doctors, but they counter that perhaps there is a mind-block the Doctor has inserted in his own mind, to make him forget his origin, a mind-block broken when he enters his own timestream to rescue Clara.
As to your two points:
1. Perhaps. Tennant always struck me as playing it as “What have we got here?” rather than “Hang on, are you me?” He was dealing with someone who said he was the Doctor and he was trying to work out why – well, that is how it seemed to me.
2. True enough. But it works equally well if you are talking about the future.
I just don’t think there is any way to be sure of what Moffat intends – but you may well be spot on.
6 July 2013 at 15:57 #13259I must have been in a very foul mood when I said Ainley was a dog-turd. Apologies. If I could find that statement and edit it, I would. It’s too harsh. Disappointment is quite sufficient.
In truth, it was McLeela who had the strongest anti-Ainley views. As time has passed, I have sometimes let her hatred of him shine brightly in my own thoughts. It was a topic she was passionate about. I should be more careful.
When I was talking about an actor crossing the line, I meant giving less than their best performance or accepting a role they know they cannot do: the line where their own ability will be called into question if they do what is asked of them and they do it badly. Simm does not cross that line for me. But, for instance, Paul Darrow does in Timelash.
It boils down to a point of view about acting, and I am happy to be alone in that view. Ainley was a better actor ( as his Tremas showed ) than his essentially lazy turn as the Master ever demonstrated. For the reasons you say, Simm may have not have wanted to go the way RTD wanted him to go, but he did it and he did it with style and skill – full throttle. ( Just so we are clear – I don’t like where RTD took the Master, but I liked what Simm, as an actor, did with what he was asked to do.) Kate O’Mara had essentially the same problems Ainley did with script and direction – but she finds a way to make her Rani memorable and distinctive.
Ainley was capable of that, but did not. Now, people can excuse that and blame variable writers and absent directors and insane producers, and that is completely fine. But, in the end, the choices made were Ainley’s. And it is those choices, the acting choices, which I don’t like.
I wanted to like Ainley’s Master – I too was glad to see that wonderful character back.
I don’t think Delgado always had the best scripts or the best directors, but he was always consistent on his take and played the character with great skill.
I am not sure why you think I need to be convinced that Colin Baker was largely responsible for his incarnation? I think he was an excruciating actor and an appalling choice and I don’t think I have ever suggested otherwise. Have I? (If so, I blame painkillers…!)
I don’t discount anyone’s view about Survival – because of my own circumstances when it first aired, I cannot watch it without thinking about other things and McLeela’s opinion and energy is inextricably tied up in that. I am happy to accept that Ainley gives a different stronger performance there – he certainly does in the Destiny of the Doctors excerpt posted above.
Indeed, I don’t discount anyone’s view about Ainley generally. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion – and I am entitled to not share it.
Being a fan of the programme does not mean it is necessary to like or approve of everything that happens in it.
5 July 2013 at 23:13 #13235Cheers!
Yes, but you can break a promise in the future. Timey-wimey, you know.
Sorry – I was wrong to omit that line and deal with it. So, thanks.
If you walk into your timeline and discover your future and your past, I expect, because I would, you would look at your future. You know your past.
You are with a girl who has seen your past. She has not seen Mr X. But she has seen your past.
You have seen your future but you don’t want to explain. Because its your future and you need to get her out of there pronto.
So you say “He’s the one who broke the promise”.
Does not mean in the past.
“Run you clever boy and remember” is quite different from “Run you clever boy and remember me”.
“He’s the one who broke the promise” and “He’s the one who broke the promise in my future” – quite different again.
I am not wedded to any view – all I am saying is that nothing can be properly deduced from the little information we have now.
In fact, I would rather he was Doctor Zero and had broken the promise in the past.
🙂
5 July 2013 at 21:54 #13230Newman came up with the idea, Lambert made it happen (and fought Newman about monsters/Daleks) and Lloyd presided over the first regeneration.
Newman and Lambert wanted the format to be as flexible as infinity; Lloyd simply gave that original concept a unique and never bettered push.
But yes, it did not start out with a Babylon 5 or Buffy roadmap. It grew organically.
And you are perceptive…Nurse Jenny is back which is bad for her, but good for me. 🙂
5 July 2013 at 21:13 #13226Bless you – but, truly, my own point of view is just that – my own point of view. It comes because of a life lived near the TARDIS one way or another, as I have elsewhere tried to explain.
But the true cleverness of Doctor Who (which is part Verity Lambert and part Donald Newman and part Innes Lloyd ) is that it can be anything, anytime, and anywhere and with anyone: it can completely re-invent itself without that being anything other than right.
Me or someone else might not like it – but that doesn’t matter. It has endless possibilities.
The 50th gives Moffat a chance no one has had since Tenth Planet – he can be completely surprising if he wants to be. He can make a new audience feel the way the Tenth Planet audience felt…or he can tell a story about the Time War…or he can do something else.
Its up to him.
5 July 2013 at 20:55 #13224I think this is one of my favourite episodes of the six.
It is beautifully written, beautifully played, beautifully directed and rewards attention with simple glory. You know, Games of Thrones works on essentially the same principle.
I don’t think anything here is padding – but it is all texture, character and heart. What every good drama needs – Shakespeare shows us that.
These days storytelling is no different – but you may need to pay more attention to be rewarded.
Leela is exceptional in this story and is the centrepiece of this episode – which is reason enough to like it. Each of Chang, Jago, Litefoot and Weng-Chiang are fleshed out more carefully in this episode and the Doctor is, happily, on the peripheral. He’ll be back. Nothing is surer.
5 July 2013 at 20:35 #13222I don’t think it matters what I think.
But, essentially, I suspect that there are different views at play. Some old BG timers like me, will want a 50th that answers the original questions, possibly meaning Hurt is Doctor Zero.
But for AG timers and, indeed, latter BG timers, the thirst for the Time War seems greater.
For me, personally, I don’t want to know anything about the detail of the Time War. I prefer to have my own dreams about that.
To launch the series into the next fifty years, what would be best? An effective restart? Or a return to the mystery that started the travels in the first place?
But I am but one…
The 50th poses a unique moment in the history of the series. It should celebrate the past and lead unquestionably to the future. I don’t see the re-visitation of the Time War achieving that.
5 July 2013 at 20:16 #13220As I understand it, yes, Eleventh Hour and the season that follows, Moffat’s first, was originally envisaged for Tennant.
These are the words in Name of the Doctor:
DOCTOR: He is my secret.
NOT DOCTOR: What I did, I did without choice.
DOCTOR: I know.
NOT DOCTOR: In the name of peace and sanity.
DOCTOR: But not in the name of the Doctor.Now, with the greatest of respect to those who dwell on the tense, actually the Doctor does not use any tense – Hurt does.
Smith has entered his own timestream and there is no reason to think that having entered it he has not seen his future. His remarks to Hurt could work perfectly well whether the events had happened or were to happen.
I am not saying that Hurt must be a future Doctor; far from it. But I don’t think that possibility can be easily discounted.
I still think that telling the story of the Time War is too big a deal for a 90 minute special – I am not sure that telling the story of why the Doctor rejected Time Lord society is such a big deal. But….Moffat may well see it differently.
To me, it would be joyous and thrilling to sit with my nephews and see a story about why it all began in the first place – a reaffirmation of everything that has happened – and a launch pad for a future. Unsealing the Time War does not seem to me to open up possibilities – merely to ensure that Fans are happy and that Continuity/Canon reigns.
I can’t see that being what Moffat wants to do.
But I am probably wrong!
🙂
5 July 2013 at 19:58 #13215sorry @jimthefish – mucked up the tagging
5 July 2013 at 19:40 #13214@JimThe Fish
Hey, thanks for that. I have never seen that – what is it from? What is Destiny of the Doctors?
I liked Ainley there – but then he is rarely like that in the series.
Who wrote that? Dicks?
What does he call Troughton? I could not make it out?
You know, I always used to listen to Ainley but hear Delgado in my head…it made everything better…
🙂
5 July 2013 at 19:20 #13212I still think that the older McGann Doctor or the real Ninth Doctor are the most obvious possibilities and that is what makes me pause about them.
If the Time War sealing was the issue, why hasn’t one of Ecclestone, Tennant or Smith done something about it?
Whatever idea Moffat had for Ecclestone’s role in the 50th, we know from Smith’s first season that he can rework things if he chooses – that first season was first envisaged as Tennant’s final with him starting it with the crash that would see the commencment of his regeneration (I believe).
So, surely here, he could rework his plan if he chose. A simple way to do that is to make a new Doctor 9.
But equally, he could be Doctor Zero and we could see a tale about why the Doctor ran from Gallifrey in the first place. But I think that is just wishful thinking on my part.
And the mention of the Valeyard in Name of the Doctor might be something or nothing…
5 July 2013 at 19:02 #13211@arkelseizure @phaseshift
I guess my point of view about Ainley is a simple one: he showed excellent promise as Tremas ( his performance there is one of the few acting highlights that season) but the promise quickly dissipated, and for me, never was fulfilled.
I have watched Five Doctors again just recently and while, no doubt, he is better there than in other stories – such as Planet of Fire, Time Flight and Mark of the Rani – he is still far from good.
And I am only talking about his acting. He always struck me as a disinterested actor as the Master- and whatever happens behind the cameras, it is what happens in front that matters. Five Doctors is hardly Doctor Who writing at its best, but other actors in the story manage to turn in exemplary performances.
I, too, quite like the ” Attend to me” speech – but that is not saying much. And, in a way, that speech makes my point – the way Ainley delivers those lines is perfect, brimming with undisguised mania and mouth-drooling madness but refined, restrained and, therefore, more chilling – yet, funny too. It’s a heady mix.
But that same care is not lavished on other lines in that or later stories. And its the pantomime cackling that I loathe the most.
No doubt JNT was to blame. But many actors managed to be true to their craft while adhering to JNT’s singular view of the world – and, equally, there is a line over which professional actors just should not cross – the line where their own ability will be called into question if they do what is asked of them.
It is interesting to me, that story about Sarah Sutton, Ainley and the writers for Logolopis. Because I do think that Sarah Sutton, without any help from the dialogue or exposition, really shows the struggle she has with dealing with the Master in her father’s body. I think Ainley could have done the same had he been minded to do so.
For reasons I have discussed elsewhere, I don’t have a real view about Survival, but I can’t say I see any massive difference in Ainley’s playing – except, that McCoy is neither Baker nor Davison. I always thought that Ainley should have been a perfect Moriarty for Davison’s Doctor – the possibilities are clear when you look at Keeper of Traken and Castrovalva. But that is not the way it went.
Delgado, whatever he had to do or say, always played the scene to its best advantage and worked with the other actors to make the best he could of his character. I think Simm did the same. For me, Ainley did not do that.I never thought he could be bothered – and perhaps that is because of his contempt for JNT and Saward, I don’t know. I never heard him say anything which made me think that he thought his work on the show was not the equal of or better than Delgado’s – and I always thought that was wrong.
In the same way as Colin Baker must shoulder a deal of the blame for the Sixth Doctor, so must Ainley shoulder a deal of the blame for his Master. Yes, JNT’s vision was warped and the feud with Saward helped no one. But…
When you look just at the dialogue of the Master in almost all of Ainley’s stories, there are many many ways to play them and still be both over the top but worthwhile. Delgado himself was a master, excuse the pun, at this. So was Simm, in my view, in a totally different way, and there are many other examples in and out of Doctor Who: Toby Stephens in Robin Hood, Andrew Scott in Sherlock, Charles Dance in Games of Thrones. Alex Kingston as River Song is another example of an actor using skill to deliver a quality over-the-top performance.
But Ainley did not take the difficult or hard-to-pull-off choices. What he settled for was just not that good.
In any event, there should be people willing to defend Ainley; it would be a sad world were that not permitted.
Indeed, there are many situations where I would defend him – he is better than many “villains” in many other Sci-Fi series. And he is much much better than Roberts was in the McGann movie.
But, in the context of Doctor Who itself, and given what Delgado, Pratt and Beevers all managed, and given what Ainley was clearly capable of, his Master was a disappointment for me.
And although I loathe JNT for what he did to Doctor Who, I just don’t think that the way Ainley played the Master was entirely down to JNT; Ainley must shoulder the burden too.
In any choice involving Colin Baker, Nicola Bryant and Anthony Ainley, Ainley would always be the one to choose. At least there was hope with Ainley.
3 July 2013 at 23:47 #13146Hello all
Apologies for Radio Silence – Nurse Jenny has been on leave and my nephews on holidays, so getting online has not been easy.
thanks for all the well wishes – they are greatly appreciated.
recuperation is going slowly but well.
I will be back!
🙂
3 July 2013 at 23:43 #13145 -
AuthorPosts
