Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
16 October 2014 at 11:27 #3361916 October 2014 at 11:27 #33618
@arbutus – agreed. We’re completely spoiled for train songs. I loved Mystery Train 🙂
I can think of at least seven tunes that I’d like to post. However, I’ve been ruthless and picked two. First, Hellbound Train (for its symmetry with Whisht’s Glory Bound train, and for doing things with bagpipes that I didn’t think were possible) and second Promised Land (A train song called Promised Land – need I say more?)
Honourable mentions: “Freight Train” – pick any one of a zillion covers, but for me Elizabeth Cotten is the original and best; “Salvation Train” – Scotty – just in case you didn’t like the sound of the Hellbound Train. (Imagine being on the wrong platform and getting the Hellbound one by accident!) and Train Blues – Woody Guthrie. Just because it’s Woody Guthrie.
16 October 2014 at 10:56 #33616I’m enjoying reading all the comments here as always! Especially all the talk around myth – and @wordmuse and @jimthefish (and I think @others) you got me thinking with your comments about what heroism is. It’s a complex notion, I think – and perhaps one that carries very different connotations depending on the era/genre/individual.
Thomas Carlyle wrote a series of lectures about heroes and hero worship: different types of heroes and the common qualities that they share. (And Conan Doyle in turn wrote a few lectures about Thomas Carlyle, I believe.) I recently read up to lecture 4 – The Hero as a Priest/Reformer. If I ever get round to finishing the set, I might have something clever to say on the matter! 🙂
Anyway, having a bit of a work rush, so haven’t got time for pesky thinking. I think I’ll stick a couple of songs on the music thread instead. 🙂
@oblique – thank you for your replies and recommendations. I don’t know whether it’s a good decision, but I decided to start with Ghost Light. Downloaded and ready to watch as soon as work dies down a little.
x
12 October 2014 at 03:14 #33411*AS The Architect / IN Time Heist – is what I meant to say!
12 October 2014 at 03:08 #33410Did anyone notice another Carlisle reference? (“Perhaps you’d allow Mr Carlyle here to escort you back”.) So many names to choose from and we’ve got another Carlisle/Carlyle!
The Doctor’s unpleasantness in this episode is explained by the fact that he was to some extent putting on a show in order to hide his true intentions from Gus.
So if the Doctor has a more general suspicion that he is being followed around (which is kind of the premise of Listen), then all the morally questionable things he seems to be doing of late could possibly be explained in the same way (keeping up a pretence to fool whoever is listening/watching him). This is the same trick he uses in The Architect.
Gus and Missy – relationship! Discuss!
I’ll bite 🙂
If there’s a Gus/Missy relationship going on, that would presumably mean that Gus is the “boyfriend” Missy mentioned in Deep Breath – which means it’s Gus who might and might not have pushed the Mandroid out of the skin balloon, and who has recently changed his accent. Is that possible? He would have to be able to follow the Doctor in Deep Breath without being seen somehow. Also, if Gus pushed HFM, then perhaps the Doctor saw him, and knows who he is? (dun-dun-DUN)…
That’s all I’ve got for now.
x
10 October 2014 at 18:53 #33343Hi @lisa. It’s absolutely freezing here in Cleethorpes, so I have to say I’m rather jealous. I don’t know about anyone else in the UK, but for me, there’s something very final about putting the central heating back on for the first time after the end of summer. I’ve held out until now, but perhaps tonight is the night…
Next episode looks like it could be described as a “romp”, which I’m not usually keen on, but I think after all the drama* of last week, a romp would be quite welcome.
What’s the weather like in California? Is it warm? I have some vague and rapidly fading memories of what “warm” feels like. 🙂
x
*I use the word “drama” in it loosest sense 😉
10 October 2014 at 12:09 #33341Oops, wrong link.
10 October 2014 at 12:04 #3334010 October 2014 at 11:54 #33339“So whenever someone mentions Peter Capaldi I’m bloody glad he’s still alive! I thought I’d killed the poor bastard.”
That is currently my favourite line I ever read, anywhere, ever. 🙂
x
10 October 2014 at 10:05 #33336Thank you for the kind words. I love your posts too!
Ha ha, my surname isn’t really Savon 🙂 The name is “idiot-savant” said with a bad French accent, and harks back to a conversation I had where I thought I was being very clever, speaking fluent French and that, get me. But my accent was shocking and no-one could take me seriously 🙂
Anyway, I don’t know whether anyone has seen/posted this already?
10 October 2014 at 03:57 #33330Hello @everyone.
I don’t think I ever formally introduced myself. My name is Idiotsavon (of the Savon clan North of the Humber.)
I’m a disillusioned teacher (is there any other kind?)
I’m scraping a living doing private tuition, in person and via Skype. It means I often keep strange hours. But I’m no longer a schoolteacher, which is kind of nice, if I’m honest.
I like old (blues/jazz/apalachian/folk) music, and 60’s revival stuff. I think Bob Dylan is a proper poet.
I studied French and German language and literature, but that was some time ago.
I like it when people on this forum like something I said. But equally I like to be challenged when I say something stupid. (It happens a lot.)
I’m planning on earning my fortune with a Dr Who spinoff, stealing @brewski‘s ideas. (But shhh. Brewski doesn’t know.)
If that doesn’t work out, I’ll probably join a commune. Or maybe a nunnery.
I love reading all of your posts. And I think we owe @craig a huge beer and a big thank you. This is a really brilliant corner of the internet.
Oh, and I quite like Dr Who 🙂
x
10 October 2014 at 03:19 #33328I kind of liked Red Snapper. But have to say my dog isn’t so keen.
She was fast asleep on her beanbag, then when I clicked play she woke up slowly and eventually sat up, staring at me as if to say WTF.
After 2 mins I muted the sound and she immediately settled back down into her deep dog sleep.
She has no taste, obviously.
🙂10 October 2014 at 02:05 #33327I lived in Cameroon for a couple of years, and am still in touch with a few friends there. The information they have from the radio is truly excellent. (I used to have far more political conversations with my local shopkeeper back then than I do with my “educated” friends in the UK.)
Cameroon hasn’t been hit, and people are still cracking on with everyday life. But you can bet that if ebola arrives, all the radio jingles will be worth knack all. All the high dignitaries have already gone on factfinding missions to “Not-Here”. There might be some rejection of science, and suspicion of “witchcraft”, in the very remote villages – but they aren’t a risk. In the more densely populated villages and towns, people understand and know what to do. But they also know it won’t work. There’s no infrastructure. They just have to hope it doesn’t spread.
x
10 October 2014 at 01:22 #33325There’s a huge push in at-risk African countries to educate the population. But there isn’t the infrastructure to isolate, treat and protect them.
A friend of mine is working in Sierra Leone to help manage and research Ebola there. I quote directly from Facebook:
Today’s morning office conversation in Kenema:
Coworker: “Bronwyn, are you British?”
Me: “No, Canadian. Why?”
Coworker: “Because you have something that the British don’t have”
Me: “What’s that?”
Coworker: gets up and shakes her bum in my face and laughs! then says “You’ve been in Africa too long now you’re like us”I’ll be honest with you, I don’t even know what that means.
10 October 2014 at 00:02 #33323Also: As I said, I don’t watch much TV, but am open to recommendations 🙂
x
9 October 2014 at 23:42 #33321Hi @bluesqueakpip
I don’t watch much TV (when I’m on my own, the TV is mostly off; when my fiance is home I think I’m what’s called a “Sky Sports widow”.) So no clue about what’s “in” TV-wise.I think perhaps my comment sounded a bit more provocative (and indeed utilitarian) than I intended.
At the moment, I can imagine earthlings everywhere in 2049 thinking “Thank goodness we didn’t kill the cute little moon dragon”, and possibly Lundvik and Courtney getting some sort of medal.
But if said Moon Dragon comes back, fully grown, to destroy the Earth, I can imagine the same earthlings saying “I KNEW we should have killed the evil moon dragon. We’ll have those medals back.”
And for me, that’s where it gets interesting. Trying to find some sort of universal ethical truth in a maelstrom of human fickleness and self-interest.
For the record, I think that, even if the egg turns into Satan incarnate, saving it was ALWAYS the right thing to do.
I think we met a very similar problem in Into The Dalek: Saving the “good” Dalek, regardless of the possible (indeed life-threatening) consequences.
And I think we should be teaching children – well, all the things you said, really. Everybody is an individual. Everybody deserves a chance.
Which is why I don’t think Dr Who will (or should) bring the Moon Dragon back as an evil monster. I would just find it more interesting (and challenging) personally.
I don’t think we’re so very far apart on this, to be honest.
x
9 October 2014 at 22:43 #33317@purofilion
Yup. Harry Belafonte has a fab voice 🙂
I first heard this song about 20 years ago when my mum used to drag me to folk clubs 🙂
The couple who played/sang it in the folk club are still going strong on the local music circuit. Here’s their version:
https://soundcloud.com/mambojambo/mambo-jambo-back-to-back
x
9 October 2014 at 21:30 #33310Incidentally where did it go? Does it have any further role to play?
I’ve been asking myself the same question.
If it does come back, it will probably save something important, thus confirming Clara in her decision.
However, I think it would be far more interesting – in a philosophy/ethics kind of way – if it came back as a malevolent monster that had to be killed: Begging the question whether saving it in the first place was the right thing to do.
But. Family show and all that.
x
9 October 2014 at 20:49 #33308Welcome!
I knew she would always save the moon as she knew that she was down there with Danny pink and kids
Yes, was meaning to raise Clara’s motives for aborting the detonation. I’ve been happily thinking she didn’t want to sacrifice the little moon dragon.
But what if her thoughts at the time weren’t entirely selfless? I know that if someone said to me “Either die or press a button bla bla bla” I wouldn’t really care about the “bla bla bla” bit. I’d just press the button. (I wouldn’t make a good companion.)
And yes, if she’s thinking of Future Clara down on earth, that’s two selves that she has to worry about.
As for your request for feedback: For my part, thumbs up! 🙂 But please would you separate your thoughts and ideas into paragraphs? That will make your posts a lot easier to read 🙂
x
9 October 2014 at 16:45 #33301My hugest apologies – I missed your comments upthread. Only just discovered them while having a look back over previous discussions. Glad that we share a dislike of the 10-second scene 🙂
I’d like fewer big ideas and a slower pace.
So do you have in mind some episodes, or certain Who eras, that deliver exactly the right balance of pace, excitement, character development, etc. in your opinion? I’m sketchy on BG Who by the way, but here to learn 🙂
There isn’t conjecture about Mr Small’s hat being linked to the one worn by Mr Strong, sharing as the same colour as they do, and whether the hat is in fact the very same hat, suggesting perhaps that Space and possibly Time have been manipulated; both Mr Men existing within the parameters of their own stories whilst sharing the same universe.
Now you mention it, it’s obvious!
x
9 October 2014 at 16:34 #33300You know, I’m beginning to like this spin-off of yours a little too much. Not sure whether the real Dr Who will be a disappointment from now on 😉
9 October 2014 at 16:24 #33299Ha ha, brilliant 🙂
“Have you seen my pretty knickers?”
Said with his head in a copy of “Judoon for Beginners” 🙂
9 October 2014 at 13:56 #33293since its it’s The Master I think instead of Matrix it would be Dominatrix.
ha ha. I won’t be googling that one 🙂
9 October 2014 at 13:42 #33292Thanks @handles. That was a bit surreal.
I don’t think I know any tunes about (or performed by) mummies. But here is a nice, upbeat song about the risen dead.
9 October 2014 at 12:59 #33291@wisht @brewski
If you did a search for that costume, then…
It’s strange, I’ve started getting some very unusual adverts in my Facebook sidebar.
But loving the incompetence angle!
Me too 🙂
On that note, could I suggest:
– Speaks 5 billion languages. Badly. Often resorts to pointing and shouting in Gallifreyan.
x
9 October 2014 at 02:39 #33283I’m thinking of something in black leather.
Or possibly rubber…I like it. Very Matrix. (I assume you’re thinking of the Matrix? I did an image search for black rubber/leather costumes and – well, the less said the better.)
8 October 2014 at 20:12 #332778 October 2014 at 03:45 #33251@badwulf I’m developing an addiction to TV tropes now, by the way 🙂
It totally spoils the story if you can’t just *believe* in the fatman. 🙂
Ooh, I like it. Can I adopt that as my motto? 😀(Tea through nose moment.)
x
8 October 2014 at 03:41 #33250The Doctor’s actions could therefore only be seen as responsible to Courtney if he already had knowledge that the detonation was aborted somehow.
There is another option, I think. When Lundvik asks “how do we kill it?” the Doctor says they can kill the creature with nukes “if they still work”. That’s a pretty big if – and Lundvik did not check or question whether the bombs were functional before setting the timer, so far as I can tell.
I suspect that the Doctor either a) knew that, even if the timer reached zero, the bombs wouldn’t detonate, or b) nipped off in his Tardis to do a bit of sonicking and make sure that they damn well wouldn’t. So I think the “if they still work” line was a big indication of what he was up to.
I grappled with why the Doctor would maintain the illusion of jeopardy, if he intended to disable the nukes. He says that the future of humanity “depends on the choice that is made right here, right now”. Is he lying? He doesn’t explicitly state that humanity’s future has anything to do with the survival or otherwise of the moon dragon.
So what if he knows that the moon dragon will survive either way, but that the women’s own futures (and subsequent impact on the world) will change depending on what they decide?
After the not-nuking of the moon egg, Lundvik starts the new space programme and Courtney becomes President of the USA. Would either of those things have happened in the same way if the Doctor hadn’t placed the burden of (albeit illusory) responsibility in their hands?
And as to Clara – well she keeps having helpful flashbacks that save her life. My money is on something from Kill The Moon cropping up later on as a life- (or world-) saving memory. In fact, I can imagine her in a future crisis remembering the line “Some decisions are too important not to make on your own” – or even telling the Doctor to take the stabilisers off his bike 🙂
x
6 October 2014 at 05:27 #33122there is more than one theory regarding the origins of the moon.
And not all of them are as believable as the giant space egg idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Moon_Theory
The policeman in Deep Breath says that he thinks the dinosaur has laid an egg – does he have a troubling grasp of biology? Or does he perhaps know something we don’t? In light of this episode I’m not sure!
x
6 October 2014 at 05:08 #33120@phileasf I really like your Amy’s memories explanation for everything, and the Moon Dragon as a metaphor, and thought your point about the Doctor being/not being an officer was brilliant!
Re: the Doctor not knowing the future. In Cold Blood, humans and Silurians negotiate their respective futures on the Earth (the Doctor does not involve himself in the negotiations). The Doctor describes this moment as “A temporal tipping point. Whatever happens today, will change future events, create its own timeline, its own reality. The future pivots around you, here, now.” It’s the same phenomenon I feel, and possibly a bit more helpful as an explanation than Twelve’s “Grey area”.
@pedant – had never heard of the rule of cool before today. I love it!
Didn’t score very highly on the “things I’ll be looking out for” board this week.
Suppression of instinct: briefly – holding back the urge to run from the spider-germ-thing. Also – not quite the controlling of senses, but their presence or absence: the spider was blind, but could sense movement.
No chess reference (although the concept of sacrifice was central). Slavery/captivity: Nope. References to hypnotism: Nope. References to fiction/illusion/stories – only in so far as pretty much everyone who watched it at some point thought “this has got far too silly” (deliberately sabotaging the illusion – a bit Brechtian perhaps, @purofilion 🙂 ) Also David Copperfield, and the moon dragon – which is “pure myth” as @mtgradwell says.Incidentally: PINK moon – full moon in April (northern hemisphere) or October (southern hemisphere. Also called the EGG moon.) BLUE moon – third of four full moons falling within a single season. Other full moon names available here. Is Moffat naming his characters after full moons now??
x
6 October 2014 at 04:00 #33115I got off to a bad start with this episode and the whole “she says she’s gone off the rails because you told her she wasn’t special” thing… It was that slapped-in-the-face-with-a-wet-fish feeling that I sometimes get when character and plot points are established via a one-sided dialogue. (What’s that Lassie? Timmy fell into the well?)
But leaving that minor niggle aside, I enjoyed the episode. It’s interesting to read quite a range of opinions this week. I like what you say @arbutus about different people’s areas of touchiness – personally, I’m cool with the whole self-fertilising space-egg thing, and the mass that seems to materialise from nowhere. But that shirt?? Give me a break!
@melloyello I really like your Courtney theory – especially all the parallels with River that I never noticed. Great spots 🙂 But then, how would we explain Courtney’s “parents” at the parents’ evening? Adopted maybe?
When it comes to “them or us” and sacrificing innocents to save the world, the Doctor doesn’t always exercise very good judgement. Ten went overboard killing the Racnoss Babies in the Runaway Bride, and had to be stopped by Donna. Eleven nearly labotomised a starwhale in The Beast Below and had to be stopped by Amy. And although War, Ten and Eleven ultimately found a way not to sacrifice Gallifrey, Clara was the catalyst: until she spoke up, they were ready to use the Moment… So perhaps he has genuinely come to the conclusion that humans (or at least Amy and Clara) make better judgement calls than he does in that sort of situation. Certainly, he left it up to humans to negotiate with Reptilians in Cold Blood, and with Zygons in The Day of the Doctor. Perhaps he had learned his lesson with the Starwhale. So I am inclined to agree with @phileasf (really loved your posts by the way!)
I think the Doctor did the right thing by leaving humans to make the choice
I wondered whether the spiders this episode were meant as a callback to the Racnoss babies that Ten drowned quite mercilessly – a reminder that the Doctor isn’t always at his best in a them-or-us situation.
The similarities with The Beast Below were really striking – right down to the last-minute button press. It might be worth pointing out that in TBB, Amy chooses to forget because she wants to protect the Doctor from having to make “an impossible choice: humanity or the alien”. Clara on the other hand seems angry that Twelve does not protect her from that same dilemma.
x
4 October 2014 at 18:13 #32953@whisht Yes of course, the time war book – I’d forgotten all about that
Won’t be able to watch tonight’s episode for a while (as a friend has somewhat annoyingly decided to get married today).
But to sum up – things I’ll be watching out for this week:
Suppression of human instinct/emotion/thought
Chess references
Theme of slavery/captivity
References to books/fiction/illusion
References to HypnotismI think that’s everything 🙂
4 October 2014 at 13:51 #32939@purofilion I definitely think the show has been drawing attention to (hammering us over the head with) its own fictionality for quite some time. (“The Pandorica? But that’s a fairy tale” “Oh, Doctor. Aren’t we all?”) The Pandorica is just a story – then turns out to be real – ah, but then we learn that it is a fiction after all – constructed from elements of Amy’s imagination. You can take your pick of examples, but that is one of my favourites. (The fact that both River and Amy turned to writing is also a nice touch. I would like it if that turned out to be a plot point. One of their books providing a vital clue or something.)
And yes, now we have the Promised land – also dismissed by the Doctor as a myth, also apparently very real. I do not doubt that Heaven will turn out to be a fiction sorts – with Missy as the author figure, perhaps. With this in mind, I really like your suggestion of hypnotism (excuse the pun). It cropped up last episode, so I wonder…
x
4 October 2014 at 13:15 #32933Hello @whisht. I was thinking only yesterday about you and your crossword analogy from a couple of threads ago. (I think I’ve realised my own approach is to leave the crossword blank, wait for the next day’s paper, look at the answers, and say “I KNEW it”) 🙂
but where’s the fun and learning in that?
I couldn’t agree more.
x
4 October 2014 at 04:56 #32917@purofilion
My antennae pricked up when you mentioned Brecht 🙂
Casting my mind back bit, I think Brecht opposed a naturalistic “copying of reality” in favour of a very weird, unnatural sort of expressionism. He didn’t want to lull his audience into suspended disbelief. He wanted them to remain alert to the fact that the play was a fiction.
It’s on my list of things to look into (after Marlowe’s Faust 🙂 ) But I don’t know to what extent Brecht’s notion of theatre (drama) can be applied to Doctor Who. I wonder whether @timeloop has any wisdom to offer on this point?
x
3 October 2014 at 23:32 #32913On BBC iplayer, Dr Who is listed in the “Drama and Soaps” category. So still officially “drama”.
When we say “there was far too much (or not enough) drama for me this episode” and things of that nature, we’re using the word in a very different way, I think.
x
3 October 2014 at 22:41 #32912@oblique I’ve only seen a couple of Sherlock episodes but would really like to catch up at some point. I suppose if Moffat wanted to make a cheeky link between the two, this would be a good episode for it (The lone scientist.)
As to whether it worked – I didn’t even notice it, so yes and no 🙂
x
3 October 2014 at 18:33 #32905@arbutus As to the notion of drama, my thinking is more in line with yours, I suspect. My (received) idea of drama is something serious. Comedy and adventure and monsters from Mars don’t really fit.
But beginning to re-think my definition based on the comments I’ve read.
x
3 October 2014 at 18:21 #32904Glad you can identify and it’s not just me. (Happy to look death in the eye together… Not so keen on the hugging afterwards bit.)
I’m sure Matt Smith made choices about his interpretation of the Doctor. But because I never saw Matt Smith in anything else, I see him AS the Doctor. Possibly, I underestimate his acting talent as a result.
Capaldi, on the other hand, I have seen in lots of different roles. So I find it easier to accept that his portrayal of the Doctor is an artistic choice. And it’s a choice that I find fascinating. He is not endearing himself to me. On purpose.
Probably any further thoughts along those lines belong in a different thread!
x
3 October 2014 at 14:42 #32895Just my two penn’orth, if it helps
Yes, it does thank you. For me at least, your comments are really helpful. I’ve got nothing immediately to say, add or ask. But a lot to mull over. (Unlike Capaldi, I like not knowing 🙂 )
…You know, we could all answer this “drama” question once and for all with the aid of Wikipedia and a few prior assumptions…
🙂
x
3 October 2014 at 13:25 #32893the tragic and the relentless; the arguments between right and wrong; just and unjust; pain and beauty, and the alarm the latter often creates or teases out…-tense and beautiful, terrifying, even when good is lost, the mad overtakes, and the good rises once again.
You have such a beautiful way with words (Not, so far, creating any alarm 🙂 )
No response.
I just need to go away and drink all that in.
Thanks @purofilion. G’night.
x
3 October 2014 at 13:05 #32891@handles
One last thing re: tension in the Tardis. I’ve only witnessed three regenerations as an adult.
The first time (Eccleston into Tennant,) New-Tennant-Doctor was out cold and woke up in the middle of the action. (Interesting that Rose didn’t trust him at first, just like Clara didn’t trust Capaldi.) Trying to deal with the Sycorax on her own, Rose was a fish out of water and a laughing stock. When The Doctor showed up Rose took a back seat and let him do his Thing. A similar thing happened with Clara in Deep Breath (but different in perhaps important ways – Capaldi Doc seemed to decide to abandon her, and she held her own extremely well without him.)
The second time, New-Matt-Smith-Doctor (who I didn’t like at first, by the way, but grew to love) had no ties to the past. His companions were all brand new. No friction between past and former selves whatsoever.
This third time is a lot more complicated, I think.
So the way I see it, it would be weird if there wasn’t any tension between characters (or “drama” as I like to call it.)
x
3 October 2014 at 12:28 #32890@handles
Hmm. If the whole of the episode had been an extension of the Tardis scene, I’d agree with you. But I actually thought the show as a whole was incredibly funny, and so the Tardis scene worked for me. I didn’t enjoy it (as in, I didn’t feel happy or comfortable watching it) but I did think that it was appropriate.
It was most out-of-keeping with the lovely-cuddly-Matt-Smith-era Doctor Who that I adore (and still miss a bit.) But it was exactly right for those characters at that moment.
I suspect I’ll never grow to love Capaldi’s Doctor (or indeed want to hug him) but I bet by the end of his run I won’t want him to leave. (In the words of the great Vince Mantooth “I hate you Ron Burgundy. I pure, straight hate you… But goddammit do I respect you.”) 🙂
x
3 October 2014 at 12:16 #32889@handles
Now I need a memory worm to get this out of my head.
Ha ha, sorry for the negative imagery. Hope you have got it out of your head already! 🙂 To clarify: I think that “fun, larks and adventures” define Dr Who. (NOT confrontation and/or crying. They’re optional extras, to be used judiciously.)
I guess that the proper definition of “drama” (@thommck’s “extraordinary happening to the ordinary”) includes the fun/silly/quirky/impossible/ridiculous. And thus applies to Doctor Who.
But I feel like the word “drama” (the way that I feel it being used around me) connotes depression and negativity.
I think I’m confusing “drama” with some sort of genre of grim realism. But if I am, it’s because that’s the way that the word seems to be used, in my experience.
So I’m interested in other people’s interpretations, knowledge and understanding of drama.
Scholar’s friend: Everything’s always such a drama with you, isn’t it?
Scholar: (facepalm) No, it isn’t. It really isn’t…x
3 October 2014 at 11:35 #32887The above should be @thommck (my forum manners are all over the place today!)
3 October 2014 at 09:51 #32886The above should be:
@purofilion
Perhaps someone else might attend to the definition of drama
(Forgot my @someone and my blockquotes.)
@thommk I like that as a definition. Although it would mean that all of Dr Who, and a big chunk of science fiction, and if you think about it, any kind of interesting story, can all be defined as drama. I think of “drama” as… well, to be honest I’m not sure. That’s why I brought up purofilion’s question! But if someone said to me. “You should watch this programme. It’s a TV drama” I wouldn’t envisage fun, larks and adventures. There would be a lot of confrontation and crying. And the circumstances might not be particularly extraordinary.
3 October 2014 at 09:30 #32884Perhaps someone else might attend to the definition of drama
Allow me…
Only kidding. I’ve learned my lesson 🙂
But it’s a really good question. How does anyone define Drama? I bet someone scholarly on this forum knows 🙂
x
3 October 2014 at 08:41 #32883That was just fantastic, and a post (series of posts) that I’ll come back to again and again. Thank you so much.
when he tells Clara that her answer “must be honest and cold and considered, without kindness or constraint.” If this is his gold standard for dealing with people, it explains a lot.
It really does!
So what about Rule 1: The Doctor lies? Do you think this still applies with Twelve? In spite of his sometimes brutal honesty?
x
2 October 2014 at 12:34 #32862This just occurred to me – Missy’s rejection of the policeman reminds me of the Sheriff of Nottingham’s rejection of Quayle in favour of Quayle’s Ward (Maid Marian). The Sheriff was selecting people for forced labour. Is that what Missy is up to as well?
Other prominent slaves/captives so far in the series are Mr and Mrs Teller – and although Mrs Delphox isn’t in chains, she might as well be… In “Listen”, the Doctor “slaves” the Tardis to Clara – I thought that was an odd choice of wording at the time. (Enslavement and servitude also feature heavily in The Tempest.)
x
-
AuthorPosts
