[janetteB @replies]

@purofilion

There’s a devil and Beltane,

That confused me at first. Our cat is called Beltane. 😉

@thommck

Also, we like to have our boys shipped off by 9pm so we can get the wine out!

Very sensible.

As we get Dr Who a day late we choose when we watch it, which is usually when dinner is cooked. I always hated having someone else dictate my tv viewing to me. When the boys were little we started to record everything so we could fast forward through the “bad bits”. Because we tend to re-watch favourites they got to know when to fast forward and were happy to do so. Whenever they did watch TV direct they would wonder why rewrite and fast forward didn’t work.

Cheers

Janette

 

[janetteB @replies]

@thommck I know exactly why Clara likes to hug her mug of tea; the same reason I like to hug my coffee mug. Jenna Coleman really, really feels the cold. Whenever I see set pictures she is bundled up in a huge coat while others are wearing light shirts. The way she was standing below the window also showed that she knows what it means to suffer from the cold, and she was wearing a rather skimpy dress.

It is hard to tell if the face is human or not. I paused on it yesterday morning. It doesn’t like quite human but that could be a trick of the light and the blurring effect, very deliberately done so we cannot be entirely sure.

Interesting re’ the “Time Shot.” Very early days for time travel then. I think I can still work my (or that particular one of my many) theory around that. He was still going forward in time to rescue someone. He did not necessarily intend to return to his own time. However, as I said, the chair was probably just there so Clara could sit and chin wag with the Doctor or as some other very clever person noted many posts ago, because she told Danny he should ask for an extra chair and having two chairs rather than just one has become a family tradition.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

@blenkinsopthebrave Good to have you back with us. Hope the cellar isn’t too depleted.

Cheers

Janette

 

[janetteB @replies]

@spider. I don’t think Orson was being sent to rescue Clara. I was suggesting that he may have had a personal mission which was opposed to his official mission and so he packed the extra chair and tampered with the destination accidentally sending the ship to the end of the universe. Not sure just how he would manage to sneak a spare chair into the capsule but he had a lot of clothes too, rather more than one would expect someone to need for one week. (Certainly a lot more than I would take with me,) though clearly the caspsule designers were not expecting him to be living in the capsule for that long as they did not provide him with a clothes dryer. (Of course the extra chair could simply have been put there by the set dressers so that Clara has somewhere comfy to sit when talking to the Doctor)

Have just watched a third time. I am not getting tired of this episode. Something did strike me as an odd possibility, maybe it is Orson under the red blanket. Red blanket, red spacesuit. Either it is twin brother Orson playing a prank or time travelling Orson visiting his ancestor. He can’t been seen because that would break all the laws of time.

If the Doctor in the future pops back and writes Listen on the blackboard then he is trying to warn his past self. Listen to what? Clara? or there is a hidden presence either in his head, in Clara’s head or in the Tardis and that might be Missy. I love this episode because it throws up so many questions. Every time i watch it I catch new ones yet it works as a stand alone story too but I have always liked stories that don’t answer all the questions and leave the viewer/reader to fill in the answers. Moffat certainly likes to get the viewer exercising the grey cells..

Cheers

Janette

 

[janetteB @replies]

@oblique and @pedant, Just to add, Moffat is the kind the writer that pays a lot of attention to detail. Of course not all details are significant or even those that are are often just reflections of what is happening. The significance that we read into things is by no means the reason it is there. Meaning is always going to be very subjective, however Moffat has almost certainly studied semiotics and knows how to use signs. Most writers would have done so at some time.

Just adding to what you said re individual writers, non-fishy man, Moffat does go over the scrips by other writers and edit where required so that any arc related details can be present in all the of the stories regardless of scriptwriters. It is also clear that he gives his writers guidelines. The attention of detail is one of the market differences between Moffat and RTD as showrunners. The arc references in RTD were very simple, a name or phrase sprinkled through the scripts was usually the sum of it. When it comes to character names again the difference is clear. RTD was known to re use the same names. He favoured simply names, reflecting the “everyman” quality of his characters. Moffat chooses very interesting and often uncommon names. Danny sounds simple enough but we learn that his real name is “Rupert”. Orson is interesting on several levels. There is the very brilliant “Orson Welles” link. (Again I have forgotten who first brought that to our attention, but credit to ?) Also the name has an interesting historical background and the story of Orson and Valentine dates to about the time of the reign in Northumbria of Oswald which brings me to Clara’s name, also significant on several levels. Oswin, “Os for the Win”, but also a Saxon name linked to Oswald king and saint. (His son was Oswiu) Moffat has very definitely been doing his homework.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

Welcome @thebrainofmoffat and all the other new members who have introduced themselves here. Take a seat, enjoy the ride.

@arbutus Yes I did think it odd that after advocating Mark of the Rani so eloquently he did not comment on it. I do hope he is well.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

Whew. Have just spent the past two hours cleaning cat hair out of the keyboard so I could type..

Firstly @mudlark Your comment at post 31902 re Guardian comments was spot on. I rarely venture there now, because some of the comments make me feel distinctly anti-humanist.

@spider, Your post of 31913 re’ the second chair. Maybe he hoped to find or collect someone. He was intending to acquire a passenger, ie to rescue Clara. This ties back to the Orson & Valentine myth I referred to earlier. In that story they rescue their mother, here it might be Clara that Danny/Rupert (I like the reference to the most heroic bear) and Orson are endeavouring to rescue. I also wonder if he gave her the soldier as a good luck icon, something to protect her or as a symbol that she and Danny will rescue her. But then she gives it to the Doctor so narratively that doesn’t quite fit.

Orson either is a descendant of Danny’s which the story implies, or maybe a twin or clone however much though I like the idea that he is his father, and being a time traveller, and Danny appearing to be fatherless, that is possible, I think it doutful. Actually on reflection I think I will add that to the possibilities. (Sorry after the battle of the keyboard I have forgotten who originally suggested that Orson was Danny’s father.) So if Orson is Danny’s father the question is, who is the time travelling ancsestor? No I won’t say it.. I am in danger of sounding as repetitive as the dodgy key on my keyboard.

I suspect that the toy soldier will appear again. I think its “journey” begins in the orphange though his comment that the toys do not belong to him but to the home may be significant. Moffat either does not write random lines or picks up later on previous comments and plays with them. I do like the idea however that the soldier circles in time, going somehow from the Doctor to Rupert/Danny, which given the Timey Wimey nature of  the story is possible. I am sure that eventually the toy soldier will either reappear in the Tardis in some dusty old corner or will be in the posession of someone in the future linking them back to the Doctor. (Yes Susan again!!)

Cheers

Janette

 

[janetteB @replies]

@arbutus  I agree absolutely re’ Capaldi’s Doctor but had to chuckle at your comment,

Someone on the Guardian blog called him “amoral and uncaring” (meaning it as a good thing, to be fair). But I really can’t agree with that

Poor psychopaths. Dr Who with all its empathy and compassion must a hard slog for them. At times it seems that Capaldi is achieving what Colin Baker wanted to do, to make his Doctor more alien, clumsy at times, not responding in the way a human would. However when it comes to social ineptness he now has a rival in Danny Pink. Danny, if not a timelord, then at least connected to a Gallifreyan, which bring me back to  something that I find rather niggling. Why an orphange? Seems rather Dickensian. I doubt there were many children in orphanages by the time of Clara’s childhood. If he wanted to show a child alone MOffat could easily have had Danny in a boarding school it being the Uk and all that. I also suspect that when Danny says he was with family he is lying or at the very least, hiding something. I got the distinct impression that both he and Clara were keeping back a hell of a lot in that scene just as Orson is doing later on.

@purofilion. I agree re’ the monster. I am happy for it to be non existant, but above all I don’t want the answer to that riddle. Never quite knowing is what gives the story its power. We are left to fear the monster under the bed which is so much scarier when you don’t know just what the monster is.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

I have just rewatched the episode, which incidentally was even better second time, especially as I had no distractions in the form of Jammy Dodger munching children. My brain is buzzing with bonkers ideas.

Firstly ORson. When we first meet him he seems happy, pleased to have been rescued but his demeanour changes about the time he realises who Clara is. I think when the Doctor asks about old photos the expression on his face implies that he does recognise Clara but cannot admit it. Everyone if this episode is keeping secrets except the Doctor. I suspect Orson might have the biggest secrets of them all, which led me to speculate, perhaps it is Clara or Danny that he is looking for and perhaps he deliberately sabotaged the time destination on his space ship and screwed it up. When he gives Clara the soldier at the end he appears to be acknowledging that she is family or at least intimately connected to the family. I suspect that he is giving her the good luck symbol because he knows what is to become of her. Now it gets silly but there was a reference to sontarans perverting the course of human history. What if humans have acquired Sontaran Cloning techniques. Orson is a clone of Danny, with a mission, to find and rescue Clara. He meets her but too soon.

Secondly the Toy soldiers. What did the Doctor do with it and why doesn’t he recognise it when he sees Clara with it in the orphanage. It seems that the Doctor is rather forgetful and I guess childhood was a considerable time ago. I can accept that he has forgotten it but wonder, if he will remember it later on in the series. As to what became of it, well my guess is that he would have given it to his children or grandchildren to play with. It is probably still in Susan’s old toy box which she must have hidden in her Tardis like pockets when they fled Gallifrey as it appeared that they left empty handed. (Along with the Doctor’s cot.) I did toy with the notion that it was Susan who handed the toy down but I could fit the orphange and Danny into that. I am still trying though. 🙂

Lastly the references to eyes that seem significant and linked to Clara. She has very expressive eyes and I think Moffat is playing on that. I loved her face when she realised whose bed it is when she is hiding under. She certainly does act with her eyes.

And lastly lastly, I don’t think there is a monster though it appears impossible for the Doctor to have written Listen on the blackboard in the beginning because we are watching him that entire time. Every other monster incidence canbe explained. The face of the creature on the bed was humanlike or Sontaran like. It did look bald but that might have been due to the light behind it. Was the orphange a sontaran cloning factory?? Is Danny a clone too?? Ok. I’ll head for the coat rack..

Cheers

Janette

 

[janetteB @replies]

I jumped in with my “paint fumes” theory  and forgot half of what I meant to say. As with the best Moffat stories so much is left ambiguous. We never know if there really is a monster under the quilt or anything lurking at the end of time. For once in Dr Who, there may not be a monster just our own fears which is the usual Moffat loop because it was Dr Who, (the TV series), that created our fears in the first place. (My childhood fear of the dark anyway,.) There are loops within loops. Orson is only there at the end of the world because Clara went back to the restaurant but she only returned because she met Orson. (Assuming, and I think we are meant to assume, that Clara is Orson’s ancestor or at least one of his ancestors, be it Clara or Danny, travels in time as a result of their relationship.)  Whew, that was worse than the paint fumes. I note that he is non gender specific when referring to his time travelling ancestor, (whom I doubt is Susan but that was fun and I am determined to fit Susan into things somehow.)

I don’t think there is any question as to the identity of the child in the barn and it is clearly indicated that he returns to the barn with The Moment. I assumed that was on Gallifrey, other family members thought it a different planet. Interesting how differently we “read” scenes. The Moment was surely powerful enough to take out the planet and surrounding enemy forces but I would have expected it to be “released” in a central place and Hurt Doctor expected and fully intended to die in the “blast” or whatever the Moment was going to do. By the time of the Time War the barn is a ruin and the surrounding area has become desert, war, climate change, agricultural damage? During the Doctor’s life span much can and would change, part of the problem with living so long.

I loved the insight into the Doctor’s childhood and the reminder that he had family on Gallifrey. It seems that he, like Danny Pink, was an orphan so when he talks of family he is referring not to parents etc but to partner and offspring. Susan again.

So many wonderful posts and great ideas buzzing about. I liked the idea that Orson is Danny. (Sorry I have forgotten who posted that.) If Orson is Danny maybe he is time travelling in an attempt to return to his own time stream, perhaps because he is “lost” as a result of travel with the Doctor and Clara. Maybe he is a mistake that has not yet been made. I really need to rewatch and see his response when introduced to Clara.

Cheers

Janette

 

 

 

 

 

[janetteB @replies]

I just wanted to express a concern which really belongs here. I think it was @purofilion who mentioned on the “Listen” thread that @blenkinsopthebrave is AWOL. He has not posted for some weeks, as far as I can see. I hope he is ok…

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

@whofangirl-73 Not all Gallifreyans are Time Lords and it would seem that Susan is not a graduate of the Academy, presumably the criteria for a Time Lord so whether she can regenerate or not is an unknown and entirely up to the script writers. There was never any indication that she was adapted or fostered. Susan’s relationship was ambiguous in the old series. There was never any mention of parents/children to imply a biological connection leaving the issue up to  fan interpretation. AG Who has heavily implied that he had family on Gallifrey. In the Doctor’s Daughter he tells Donna that he has been a father before. It implies, (in my view anyway) that RTD and Moffat view Susan as the Doctor’s biological grandchild but I might well be wrong on this and as I said, it was a wild theory, more wishful thinking than a serious projection of what I think is going on. (Because I am always, always wrong.)

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

I give up!! I have been trying to catch up with all the posts between painting the laundry and I just can’t do it so I’ll comment and apologies if I repeat something that has already been said..

Firstly to just to echo the general view that “Listen” is one of those Dr Who classics, up there with Moffat’s best and most brilliant. So far we are having such a great series. Each episode has been quite different, all strong in their own way but this episode was something very different again. Moffat at his best. Ok, enough of that onto some random thoughts,

Firstly something I posted in the spoilers thread during the week about the name ORson.

Orson is another name with an interesting, medieval, origin. The following is a quote from Wikipedia about the Tale of Valentine and Orson

It is the story of twin brothers, abandoned in the woods in infancy. Valentine is brought up as a knight at the court of Pepin, while Orson grows up in a bear’s den to be a wild man of the woods, until he is overcome and tamed by Valentine, whose servant and comrade he becomes. The two eventually rescue their mother Bellisant, sister of Pepin and wife of the emperor of Greece, by whom she had been unjustly repudiated, from the power of a giant named Ferragus.

This tale is roughly contemporary with the reign of Oswald in Northumbria. Fascinating. Methinks Moffat has a taste for Medieval history.

Having now seen the episode I can see some connection between Orson, Rupert/Danny and the twins in the story. I don’t think that Orson and Danny are twins though ’tis possible. Danny is an orphan, Orson from a future period in which humans are experimenting with time travel. Orson would seem to the wild man from the end of the universe while Danny is raised in an orphange, an institution which seems to feature rather often in Moffat’s stories. He has a Dickensian fondness for orphans.

A wild idea I have, which is 99 percent wishful thinking, is that this all involves Susan. Perhaps one of the mistakes he must fix is neglecting to return to Susan, leaving her on earth and forgetting about her. She would outlive David and have no reason to want to stay. What if it is Susan behind humanities development of time travel. This is only the second time we have ever encountered time travelling humans. I note somebody many posts back, (apology for forgetting whom) suggested that Susan might be the grandparent who was a time traveller. I suspect that Orson’s time travelling ancestor is Danny Pink, but I like the idea all the same. Family has always been featured in MOffat’s stories. This story shows us a glimpse of the Doctor’s childhood. He also implies that he has been a “Dad”. Moffat is reminding us that he had children on Gallifrey, maybe, just maybe, for a reason. And maybe, just maybe, I am a little to obsessed with finding Susan as I saw a possible Susan connection in “Into the Dalek”. A time travelling Susan might well be the woman in the shop. Clara might not have recognised her photo because she was either many years older or had regenerated or maybe Clara did recognise the photo, after all the camera did linger on it and maybe it was an image of Susan that she saw in the history in the Tardis library. And now, back to the painting…

Cheers

Janette

 

[janetteB @replies]

@phaseshift, thanks for the link to the Sylvester McCoy interview. Very long and well worth the time required to read. By the time he took on the role I had stopped watching Dr Who. I was at Uni and didn’t really watch any TV much by then so I was pleasantly surprised when I saw an episode of a McCoy story, I think it was part one of Curse of Fenric.

I am looking foward to watching the McCoy story as I think the only one I have watched in entirety is Survival. When Dr Who was repeated in Oz in 2005 &6 the final episode of Survival aired about two nights before we left the country and we had to attend a farewell dinner. The boys were furious because, despite all the moving about at that time, they had managed to keep up with Dr Who. They did not forgive us until, on our return to Australia fourteen months later, we got a copy of Survival for them so they could watch the final episode.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

I would have to vote for Curse of Fenric which was the fist McCoy story I ever saw. (Mercifully I missed all the Mel episodes) with Survival as a runner up. I haven’t got along too well with Revelation of the Daleks. Maybe it was just my mood at the time but I switched off after about ten minutes. It always seemed to me that McCoy really didn’t get the quality of script that he deserved but perhaps I just haven’t watched enough of his stories.

Cheers

Janette

 

[janetteB @replies]

Coles. I was very surprised but it seems they now have a very small shelf of British imports. I expect most stores will now be stocking them so would be worth a look. 🙂

 

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

Have just returned from the weekly shop and am very excited because… our local supermarket now stocks Jammy Dodgers. The real item or as I commented to the boys, “the real McCoy” so tomorrow night they can munch real Jammy Dodgers not the rather poor Aussie substitute while watching Dr Who. I guess it makes up for no longer being able to buy English Jelly Babies locally.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

Orson is another name with an interesting, medieval, origin. The following is a quote from Wikipedia about the Tale of Valentine and Orson

It is the story of twin brothers, abandoned in the woods in infancy. Valentine is brought up as a knight at the court of Pepin, while Orson grows up in a bear’s den to be a wild man of the woods, until he is overcome and tamed by Valentine, whose servant and comrade he becomes. The two eventually rescue their mother Bellisant, sister of Pepin and wife of the emperor of Greece, by whom she had been unjustly repudiated, from the power of a giant named Ferragus.

This tale is roughly contemporary with the reign of Oswald in Northumbria. Fascinating. Methinks Moffat has a taste for Medieval history.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

I have just re-watched the story too and enjoyed it as much on second viewing as on the first. I suspect that this is one of those episodes that will merit many a re-watch in this household. I think a lightweight story was ideal at this point. It gave us more insight into the character of this new regeneration and made some meta comments upon his status as a Robin Hood style hero. There were enough hints and illusions to keep us bonkers theorisers busy for the week.

This could not by any stretch been considered a Historical story. Merry England here is purely of the Hollywood kind, and I’m guessing that those who disliked the Errol Flynn Movie also disliked this episode. What I am really unsure is whether this means anything, ie it is a “fake world” or if it was just Mark Gattiss writing a fun story purely for entertainment purposes. I confess that, like the Doctor, I would prefer to find out later that Robin Hood is not real afterall.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

Oh I like the Missy-Missing connection @brewski I think that miniaturisation is the key to the arc having been referenced in one way or another in every episode so far though in the first episode it was the dinosaur that was enlarged so that the Tardis appeared to be minute. My one concern is that increases the likihood that Missy is the Master. I like the interface suggestion much better. An interface operating from within either the Doctor or Clara’s brain?

Unless you are drawing on information gleened from “spoilers” I don’t think there was any need to post your ideas in this thread. A lot of people don’t venture in here and so will miss out on what is an excellent bit of bonkers theorising. Perhaps best check with one of the mods.

@wolfweed I wonder if Glen Affric is standing in for the Lakes District?

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

I have not had time for a second watch but have had plenty of time to reflect. I think that this episode is maybe deceptively light. I was interested to hear that Moffat asked Gatiss to do the Doctor meets Robin Hood story. I wonder just how much of a “brief” he gave him and how much was purely Gatiss having fun. (It is certainly clear that he had fun with this story.)

I was reflecting last night that Tom Riley might be an interesting choice for Doctor in the future and it occurred to me that it is important to establish now, purely for pragmatic production reasons, that the Doctor can use faces he had encountered before, otherwise it will become increasingly hard to find a good actor for the part, all the good actors having featured at some time or other in the series.

I keep thinking about the miniaturisation thing and realised also that there have been references to miniaturisation in every episode. In Deep Breath the impossibly large Dinosaur swallows the Tardis, in this story the Doctor speculates that they are in a miniscope. IT is either significant or a red herring and knowing Moffat it is more likely to be the later.

@Purofilion I am not entirely sure that the Lost In Austen comment is off topic. This episode had a definite stepping into a story feel ot it. (In this case it was more a “stepping in a 50s Hollywood movie feel) and now I feel that a Lost in Austen rewatch is required, after rewatching Robin of Sherwood of course.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

I have a new theory about Missy. Maybe she is inside Clara’s head as opposed to the Doctor’s head. Clara might have been “infected” when she followed the G.I into the Doctor’s timestream, in which case Missy would be the G.I. This means carrying on with the major “big bad” from the previous series which I suspect Moffat would not be inclined to do.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

On reading through the article on the BBC website, posted by the wonderful @wolfweed the mention of the minoscope caught my attention. Miniturisation again.. that is definitely a theme for this series and I suspect a clue to the mystery of Missy.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

Finally watched it and really enjoyed it. It was just what I hoped it would be, a light hearted, swashbuckling romp. I felt that Capaldi was not entirely comfortable with the role at times. Is he too anxious to be the Doctor that he isn’t quite nailing it? Time will tell still there were moments of brilliance. The rivalry with Robin was brilliant. The Doctor likes to play the mythical hero and does not appreciate competition.

I did not take notes as I read through the above posts so I have already forgotten who said what. Someone objected to the Doctor’s callousness toward the outlaw with only six months to live. I don’t think it is callous, just a lack of social sensitivity.

Lovely inclusion of Patrick Troughton as Robin Hood reminding us that Robin Hood and the Doctor are both English myths. This episode was all rather “meta”. It also plays on the “good man” theme and the making of a legend.

@Purofilion I responded to your post on the Into the Dalek thread. I assuemed you were commenting there to avoid spoilers until you had finished watching the episode. I did not recognise Tom Riley. I don’t think I have seen him in anything since Lost in Austen; a favourite timey wimey story, where fiction becomes reality. Is his casting in this story a bit of a nod to his role as Wickham, another impossible character. this episode certainly had that “stepping into a story” feel. Robin Hood and his merry men were straight out of 19th century literature and 20th century Hollywood.

Loved Clara’s dress. Want one just like it for the next Medieval Fair. Will have to persuade one of the boys to go as the Doctor.

@jimbomcmaster like you theory about timelord DNA. It would explain why he is able to “revist” old faces though I suspect that, at the moment anyway, the Doctor has some ability to choose a face at random. I don’t think DNA has much to do with it.

Seems that The Promised Land is Robot Heaven. Reminds me of Kryton.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

Well spotted  @purofilion.  Tom Riley, aka Robin was indeed Mr Wickham. I did not recognise him.  (Just reached “the other side” so will catch you on the other thread.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

@vashtanerada I don’t think many older fans objected to McGann. It was generally thought that he was fine it was just the movie that was rubbish. A very quick response to your question is that in the early nineties the BBC axed Dr Who. Several years later they sold rights to a Canadian(or U.S.) company who made the film as a pilot for a TV series. The film, which had none of the feel of the original series, was a flop and so the TV series, (thankfully) did not eventuate. I believe that for some years however McGann’s contract bound him to that company and it was only when it expired that he could do the Big Finish work. (That last may not be correct.)

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

@midnyt good point. I will cross fingers and toes for a one off special then or lots of minisodes.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

@midnyt

the lovely Mr. Paul McGann and his poor, poor movie?

Well said. I hope that the BBC will provide Paul McGann to reprise the role again. He certainly deserves it and after TNofD there is plenty of demand for it. There could actually be Dr Who spinoff episodes featuring the Doctor trying, and perhaps failing, to avoid the time war.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

I suspect that the message was intended not to bring the Doctor and Clara together and how better to do that than in an situation of danger. I don’t think the message was ill intended and I don’t think the person behind it was Missy.

@arbutus I agree absolutely re’ the Chameleon arch concept having had its day. I don’t think it is needed to justify Susan’s continued existance. After all she was living in the future. The Doctor is a time traveller so his statement makes little sense given that there were timelords scattered about the universe before and after the time in which he is speaking. I think that was RTD just trying to ramp up the “Lonely God” thing without putting too much thought into the ramifications of what he was was writing.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

@serahni In Invasion of Time there are timelords living out on the Galifreyan wilds but they have left the Citadel and rejected the life of the TimeLord. I don’t think it is know if all Gallifreyans regenerate or if it is a specific gift.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

@arbutus

Except… the Doctor always said that he would have sensed the presence of time lords who still existed. Would he not have sensed his own granddaughter?

 

At the time he said it Susan was locked in the future and essentially living a human life. She might well have been difficult to “detect” and he did not want to seek her out, to disturb her in the life she had chosen which was no the life of a timelord. That line always annoyed me becasue BG who depicted several renegade Time Lords hiding on earth. That line is the equivilent to killing off the Doctor’s daughter. You might not want to use her, or renegade Time Lords but a future writer might. In a show like Who it is not fair to future writers to kill off too many story possibilities so I am rather hoping that Moffat, or some future writer will ignore of explain away that line.

 

@brewski

I really want to see a return of Susan. But I don’t think she’s the woman in the shop. For one thing Clara saw a picture of Susan in the Black Archive but showed no sign of recognition.

 

I am certain you are correct and the woman is not Susan however.. If it was Susan she would not necessarily look at all like she does in the photo. She would either be considerably aged, maybe even to the extent of 200 years older, or a fresh regeneration.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

@brewski I am definitely with you on the “not the Valeyard”. I dislike the concept though I can’t comment on the execution as I have not seen the story in which the idea was introduced however I don’t think Moffat would dredge up an idea from the dying years of the show. At least I certainly hope he doesn’t because I barely consider much of what took place in the later years to be “canon”. I think the only elements which should be drawn on from BG Who are the stand out classic ones. I doubt that Missy is either the Valeyard or The Rani though Moffat does recycle old ideas and give them a fresh sheen, so if Missy is the Rani she will be a very different Rani.

Cheers

Janette

 

[janetteB @replies]

The woman in the shop is Susan. I know this was suggested long ago but after a few wines and lots of gardening I am (for the moment anyway) convinced. Susan has an interest in connecting Clara to the Doctor, not sure why initially but it is also Susan who manipulated the education system to get Clara the job at Coal Hill. It has to be Susan because only Susan can a) Travel in time, being a timelord and all that, b) has the link to Coal Hill and C) would know the Tardis phone number. As to a) she did not have the wherewithall to time travel when left on earth but being smart Gallifreyan I am certain that she would have worked something out eventually, after all, being essentially ageless she had plenty of time to do so.

@serahni nothing wrong with wishful thinking. Moffat once wished he could write for Dr Who. Look where it got him..

@juniperfish. Sorry to hear that you are still “under the weather”. Hope the antibiotics kick in soon.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

I think my avatar answers your question @serahni Yes I would love to have Romana return as she was one of my favourite BG companions and because she is one of those who is part of the ongoing “Who” universe if there is such a thing. Moffat has given indications that there is continuity in the series, something that really did not exist until AG Who. There is the distinct possibilty that we will meet up with Ian again and I keep hoping that one day we will meet up with Susan too. I don’t want the Doctor to reconnect with all his past companions and nor do I consider that possible. With the exception of Susan and Romana the companions have been human and so subect to the laws of time and nature, ie aging. Ian has been worked back into the story in TDofD. Tying Clara to Coal Hill takes us right back to the beginning so naturally there is a tendency to hope/expect that we are about to encounter Ian or meet up with Susan. I also wonder if the rebellion of humans against Daleks featured in ItD is set at the time of The Dalek Invasion of Earth in which Susan is written out. In the future I would love it if Romana returns that that has not yet been signposted but yes fingers and toes are crossed.

Cheers

Janette. (Apologies if this post was a little incoherent. It’s Friiiday Night, to quote Manny from Black Books.)

[janetteB @replies]

Yes I agree @serahni Looking forward to Sunday too. After the intensity of the last two weeks a “fun” episode will be most welcome and it’s Robin Hood!!

I’m certain that Missy isn’t River Song and hoping that she is an entirely new “villianess”. I suspect if “Claricles” make an appearance it won’t be as the major plot device. In fact as has been pointed out, the Claricles did not go beyond the Eleventh Doctor. Likewise  I think River’s story is done with too however there was that last, teasing, “spoilers” which suggests the Doctor may either encounter her again or receive some kind of message from her. I think she still may have a part to play though not necessarily as a living entity.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

@scaryb. I agree Re Vastra. I don’t think that someone who eats wrongdoers for dinner is supposed to be a role model. Vastra is a deeply flawed character but with moments of brilliance not unlike River Song. We don’t expect either character to abide by the same rules as us “common mortals”. Both have the instinct to be good, (despite R.S. claiming to be a psychopath and her upbringing) but often fall down in the application of it. We trust Vastra to fight for or with what is right but her actions are often dubious at best. It is Jenny who often reminds her of her flaws and keeps her in check and which whom the audience identifies.

Cheers

Janette

ps Re your point about older generation being more used to slapstick violence. We recall Leela and the janis thorns.

[janetteB @replies]

@nick I agree Re the relationship between Jenny and Vastra. It is very much determined by Victorian class attitudes. It is not a relationship of equals, hardly surprising perhaps when one considers that one partner is a lizard who remembers when dinosaurs roamed the earth. The clear inequality is leavend a little by Jenny’s self assertiveness. As I mentioned once before in a way the Jenny/Vastra relationship has similiarities to that of the Doctor and Companion and also to that other great Victorian odd couple, Holmes and Watson.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

@nick. You posted while I was deliberating over my post and I didn’t notice that you had beaten me to it. Sorry.

Cheers

Janette

 

[janetteB @replies]

@devilishrobby The T.B. story you are thinking of is “The Invisible Enemy” and is noteworthy because it introduces k.9 (As a teenager I always had a soft spot for k.9) Miniturisation is certainly not a new idea but doesn’t mean it can’t be used in a new way. Going into the Doctor’s head though has been done and I doubt Moffat would repeat that story. It is still a possibility. I tend to be much better at suggesting what won’t happen than what will. 🙂 Tossing ideas in the air however is fun.

@miapatrick, I agree re’ River’s last words. A mystery was left hanging there and I expect it to be returned to at some point, with or without a River appearance. It seems that Moffat does attend to “loose threads”, though not immediately. Possibly what it aludes to is Clara’s telepathy. I think it was @bluesqueakpip who mentioned her “mind reading” of Danny Pink. “Ordinary” Clara is perhaps even less ordinary than when she was the impossible girl.

@purofilion I didn’t think your comment was “off topic” at all.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

Re Slapgate, I think Clara is reacting, not just to the comment but to his attitude overall. It  is a “wake up you are the Doctor” call, an expression of her frustration with the new regeneration. She is still not fully accepting him and certainly not ready to forgive him for not being “her doctor”, whom she knew to be “a good man”. I saw it as a wake up call, and delivered as an extreme reaction to an extreme situation because at that moment her life really depends upon the Doctor being “Her Doctor”.

Re Missy. I read an interesting suggestion on the Guardian that she is the G.I, still operating from within the Doctor’s timestream. Given that the concept of miniturisation has been introduced into this series it might be setting us up for something which is happening within the Doctor’s brain. (A possibility. I am still hoping that she is something new, though that doesn’t preclude her from being a virus which will lead to he and Clara going for a voyage into his brain.) The big question for this series is “is the Doctor a good man”, may be answered at a neuroscience level.

Re’ Adric.  I am truely sorry for that horrific suggestion.

I like the suggestion that the Blues might be descendants of the Pinks. Maybe Journey will team up with Jenny (The Doctor’s Daughter) instead. A rebel ship fighting Daleks seems to be a likey place for Jenny to find herself. (I am not expecting that to happen in series.)

The story background of the rebellion against the Daleks interests me. As far as I can recall there has only been one previous story where humans are living under the authority of Daleks. (In the TV series that is) This story could well be set in the same time period as Dalek Invasion of Earth.

Cheers

Janette

 

 

[janetteB @replies]

@craig I hope Mt Snowden, (Opps, sorry meant to say the finger) recovers soon. Doesn’t it always rain in the Snowdonia ranges? I once spent an hour by the roadside in Snowdonia, in the rain, waiting for a lift. Well done for having made it safely to the summit, (if not to the pub.)

@fatmaninabox Well done to you too. btw I have some roses urgently in need of attention. 🙂

 

Re The Scottish thing, D.Day must be close. From over here we are all interested to see how it goes. (I gave up following the for and against arguments long ago. I just hope that which ever way the vote goes there is no bitterness or resentment after from either side of the border.)

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

@craig, Well handled. @purofilion @arbutus, @silverman, Well said. If such a person was ever a Dr Who fan then  I think they have been “missing the point”. But enough has been said already, and I have a meeting tonight with a bunch of “lefty, pacifist, rebel type friends” to get ready for, nearly all of whom are also Dr Who fans. (Or “lefty” by tea bagging standards anyway.)

Sadly that post left a “nasty taste”. I don’t want to dwell upon it however I did want to comment on the attitude to the military in Dr Who. Unit is (or was) a United Nations task force set up to defend earth. Unit’s mission is not to wage war or act in an aggressive way. The individual soldiers within Unit however often resort to the “six round rapid” response to threats, usually to no avail. The Doctor invariably has a better way though there are plenty of situations in which the “six rounds rapid” is required and the day is won by the combination of brain and brawn. This leads into questions about “just wars”; a question which Dr Who has never been entirely shy of broaching. The Doctor, I suspect, is like most pacifists. There comes a time when a warrior is needed but when he adapts that mantle he does not do it as “The Doctor”.

I don’t think Dr Who has ever been pro or anti military. What it is “anti” is military aggression. What the series is “pro” is military defense. (Maybe I am reading some personal values into the series and there is certainly no consistant ethos, after all the series has had many different writers with their own personal views on the matter which naturally influence what is written.)

cheers

Janette.

“ps (I am certain I had something more to say about the episode but it will come to me later, probably mid meeting.)

[janetteB @replies]

Sorry for the multiple posts but reading through Dan’s blog on the Guardian and getting ideas, however nobody will like this one. If Missy is collecting people who sacrifice themselves under the Doctor’s jurisdiction then surely the star of her collection should be Adric!!

(Ducks, grabs coat, though given the time it should be a dressing gown.)

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

Oh I forgot to mention, Clara reads the Guardian. (is that a round about nod to bonkers theorising?) MOffat mentions that the main difference between the world of Dr Who and the real world is that there is no TV series called “Dr Who” in the former but is there an equivilent and if so is Clara a fan?

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

Finally watched the episode over dinner, as we do then spent the next hour catching up on posts. It was excellent naturally and really needs to be rewatched but a few initial comments.

I also caught the Carlisle reference. Significant? Maybe.  I am still wondering at the use of Northumbrian names.

@geoffers Good pick re’ the student. I was wondering who she was.

To those to commented on the Blue/pink naming well done.  I especially like the suggestion (apologies I did not note the author of that) that Danny is Journey’s brother. The name, “Journey Blue” was rather suggestive of the Tardis. It occurred to me that she would have made a very good companion, one who would have a lot to learn from the Doctor. Maybe later, when he is fully “cooked” he will return for her.

A few random thoughts re’ Coal Hill. I assumed that Clara working at Coal Hill was just a nod to the shows history in the anniversary special, which I am certain is how the use of “Coal Hill” began. But Moffat takes simple ideas and develops them and possibly Coal Hill is about to play a bigger role. How does Clara come to work at Coal Hill? Is it just an almighty coincidence slapped in to the 50th to please fans? Or… Maybe the posting was engineered by the woman in the shop. Does the Doctor realise that Clara is working at Coal Hill? Does she know that Ian was once a Tardis traveller? Does she know that the Doctor’s granddaughter was a student at Coal Hill. Do any of these questions matter?

Another thought. Is this war of future human rebels against the Daleks in any way connected to the uprising of humans against Daleks in Dalek Invasion of Earth? It looks as though we might well be in about the time of that story, in which case Susan might be about.

Cheers

Janette

 

[janetteB @replies]

@scaryb  I think that whoever put the add in the paper was trusting the Doctor and Clara to sort out what was wrong in the restaurant and deal with it which makes it in which case it is someone who knows the Doctor well and has absolute faith in him. You may well be right though as I am usually wrong. 🙂

I will have to go back and rewatch TNofD but I thought that it is implied that Clara saves the Doctor in the past and future which leaves it open for a Claricle to appear at some time.  But then I suppose, (thinking about this as I type) that is the Doctor’s “scar” from what becomes and aborted future where he dies during the Matt Smith regeneration at Trenzalore so in that scar there is no Peter Capaldi and thus the Claricles will not be appearing again. That story is done as you say. Wow I started that paragraph intending to say the opposite because I thought encountering a “Claricle” in a future story would be fun…

I concurr with you re’ Moffat’s stories being “bigger on the inside.” They are like Gallifrian art.

@bluesqueakpip (Nice Avatar) I like the reference to Barbara Wright, still one of my favourite companions. If Clara is the new Barbara then Danny Pink must be the Ian. (though it seems he won’t be a Tardis traveller, not initially at least from what I have read.)

@Purofilion I wondered why this thread was still active then I read you post and realised it those of us yet to see last night’s (or tonight’s) episode still here.  (We will be watching the next episode over dinner tonight. So long to resist the lure of spoilers.)

Cheers

Janette

 

[janetteB @replies]

I realise that I am overusing the word “love” but I have to say, I love that poster, it’s just so gorgeously retro..

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

Missy as entirely new “big bad”. There was also the suggestion from @Thomck I think that Missy could be short for Melissa there being a character of that name in a novelisation that featured automata, though from my research on that (Wikipedia) it appears that Missy bears little resemblance to that Melissa.

Cheers

Janette

[janetteB @replies]

@serahni I think that is a bit late. The (as yet essentially unplanned) trip to the Grampians will be early October when Vic and S.A. school holiday’s coincide. I do really like the idea of having our own Oz meet up at some time though.

@purofilian I fear you may be right, re’ the Claricles story being complete in Moffat’s eyes but it certainly isn’t in ours so that leaves us free to devise our own, varied solutions to the problems that arise from it. Sometimes  I think it is more fun that way. Of course the Claricles are floating about our there in the universe so he might well meet up with one in the future. What better DEM than to produce a Claricle at the critical moment to save the day. I would love that to happen, just once, just for all the DEM citing critics out there. Just as Moffat wanted Jenny to live because the character had the potential to serve a narrative purpose later so too can all those Claricles. (If I ever try my hand at “fan-fic I think I will have to end with a Claricle saving the day.)

Cheers

Janette

 

[janetteB @replies]

I often wonder if Moffat is reading through our posts and either laughing at how wrong we are or thinking, “um I could use that idea”.

@midnyt I would have liked Tasha to have been a personification of River too because the “yet another woman whom, Time Lord Casanova, has been flirting with” annoyed me a little but I can’t come up with a theory to justify it. (yet anyway.)

Cheers

Janette

[Author]

Posts